CASE DETAILS
| Bench Y. V. Chandrachud J. A. N. Sen J. Ranganath Misra J. | Case no. (1983) 4 SCC 141 | Acts/law CONSTITUTION OF INDIA |
INTRODUCTION:
Rudul Sah V/S State of Bihar and another is a milestone judgment concerning the compensation as remedy under writ jurisdiction which is Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. This case set a precedent “whether an aggrieved person can claim compensation against state moreover, whether court can address such prayer by invoking the writ jurisdiction.
FACTS
The petitioner was acquitted by court in 1968 and he was released from jail in 1982, which is more than 14 years after acquittal. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus writ under article 32 for the release from the jail on the ground that detention is unlawful. Petitioner further claimed rehabilitation and compensation for illegal incarnation.
A PIL was filed claiming thereby the release of petitioner besides that claimed
- direct government to provide medical service,
- compensation for rehabilitation,
- Compensation for his illegal detention for over 14 years.
ISSUE:
In paragraph no. 9 court set-forth the issue for adjudication:
- The question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right?
CONTENTION:
An affidavit was filed by the jailor wherein reason was stated that the petitioner was insane therefore he was not released from jail even though an acquittal order had been passed.
OBSERVATION:
Apex court observed that no satisfactory material was presented by the state to substantiate the reason for detention of the accused in jail even after the order of acquittal. Court further observed that there is no data to disclose on what basis petitioner was adjudged as insane, moreover what measures were taken to cure him.
There is nothing to prove that on the date of acquittal petitioner was unsound mind nevertheless if he was insane, he could not have been tried for the offence reason being that an insane person cannot enter upon defence. Supreme court exercised power under writ jurisdiction to do justice for the such illegally detained prisoners who suffer at the account of derelict officers.
Article 32:
Court expounded that Article 32 of the Constitution confers power on this court to issue order, or direction or writ in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, and prohibition whichever is appropriate based on the facts and circumstances for the enforcement of Fundaments Rights guaranteed under part III of Constitution. Court further stated that right to move to supreme court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right. There is no gainsay that remedy under article 32 can not be used as a substitute for the enforcement of the rights when an efficacious remedy is present in the ordinary law.
The issue before the court was whether petitioner should be directed to avail remedy for damages and compensation by instituting the suit. Court opined that mere passing of order without compensation will be simply doing lip-service for the protection of fundamental right which the state government grossly violated.
ARTICLE 21:
It guarantees right to life and personal liberty will be affected if the power of court is limited to merely passing of order of release from illegal detention.
In para 10 court opined how compensation is appropriate remedy as under:
The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. ….. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights.
FINDING:
State was directed to pay to petitioner 30,000 /-. Court further held that this order does not preclude petitioner from filing suit in order to claim compensation against state. The compensation awarded in the present case is only palliative.