The case in question is a landmark decision that has opened up a new area of state liability law. The Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar case pioneered the idea of compensation for violations of fundamental rights protected by the Indian Constitution.
But there were never any explicit provisions for the award of compensation in the Indian Constitution. The key to the case in question rests in the Court’s superb application of its corrective powers.
This is the first instance in which the victim of a violation of his fundamental rights received financial compensation from the Supreme Court. However, this monetary payment is in addition to the victim’s civil legal right to remedy for bearing with his damages.
The Supreme Court later granted compensation in the event of a violation of Fundamental Rights after using the relevant case as a model. However, in more recent cases, the Court has been very clear that only the proper situations including issues relating to life and liberty, illegal detention, and the cause of unlawful killings are eligible for monetary compensation in cases of fundamental rights violation.
The Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar case broadened the parameters of compensatory relief within constitutional limits. The Supreme Court has vigorously evaluated economic and social rights in the context of Article 21’s right to life while also taking into account compensation as a legal remedy for the violation of Fundamental Rights.
The case involves a man who served more time in prison than was required by law. Rudul Sah, the petitioner, presented a writ of jurisdiction based on the habeas corpus (to have a body) principle, demanding his release from custody.
The petition for habeas corpus was based on the claim that the petitioner had been held longer than the allotted time in custody and that the session court had ruled in June 1968 that his continued incarceration was unlawful.
The petitioner also requested collateral relief under the constitutional remedies accessible to Indian citizens within the purview of Article 32, the foundational provision of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioner, Rudul Sah, was taken into custody after his wife was killed. After serving his sentence, he was declared not guilty on June 3, 1968 by the Sessions Court in Muzaffarpur, Bihar. However, he was released from jail in October 1982 following a 14-year sentence.
The petitioner requested compensation from the court for his wrongful incarceration in his application.
In addition, he asked that the state of Bihar pay for his medical care. The petition was brought before the court on November 22, but he had already been let out of custody.
The court did, however, give the state a show-cause notice with regard to the supplemental remedy.
On behalf of the state, the jailor produced two documents and drafted an affidavit.
The extra session judge first issued an order requiring the petitioner to stay in jail until further notice by the state government of Bihar, despite his acquittal.
Second, at the time the order was made, the Sessions determined that he could not be prosecuted.
Issue of The Case
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the purview of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was the matter before the court.
Do the provisions of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution apply to the right to compensation for unlawful detention?
Can an Indian citizen use the defence against the state’s arbitrary actions? Legal Issues Involved
Does Article 21 of the Constitution cover the right to compensation for unjust detention?
Whether an Indian citizen could mount a defence against the state’s or its officials’ arbitrary behaviour?
When evaluating the reach of Article 32 of the Constitution in the case of a violation of fundamental rights, is the petitioner eligible for financial assistance?
Petitioner’s Contention
The petitioner claimed that he had to wait 14 years to be released from prison, even after the court had found him not guilty. He spent a total of 14 years in prison without his will.
The petitioner’s fundamental rights to life and liberty, as stated in Article 21 of the Constitution, were expressly violated by this unconstitutional confinement.
The petitioner also asked for payment for the medical bills associated with the therapy that the Bihar State Government paid for him. Additionally, the petitioner demanded compensation for this unlawful incarceration as well as an unrestricted reimbursement for his rehabilitation.
Defendant’s Contentions
Despite the court’s order of acquittal, the petitioner was kept in custody for an additional 14 years due to an order of the authorities issued by the Additional Sessions Judge that expressly required the state government and inspector general of prisons to approve the petitioner’s release.
The petitioner was first deemed unsound but was later released after receiving a certificate from the civil surgeon and a letter from the legal department stating that the petitioner was stable and normal.
Judgement of Rudul Sah v State of Bihar Case
1. The Court has granted the writ petition arguing that the petitioner’s 14-year incarceration is unconstitutional despite the court’s ruling of acquittal. The Supreme Court is empowered by Article 32 to make the necessary orders, directives, and writs for the enforcement of any of the rights protected by Part III of the Constitution.
2. However, Article 21 assures that if the Supreme Court’s authority is limited to issuing an order releasing the petitioner from unlawful imprisonment, the right to life and liberty will be forfeited.
3. The right to compensation is a remedy for the illegal conduct of State entities that carry out their unlawful acts in the name of the public interest, thereby defending the state from any liability
4. Despite the petitioner’s mental instability at the time of his acquittal, this did not excuse his illegal incarceration for 14 years because a lunatic also has legal rights while being tried. The Court determined that the state’s unconstitutional detention was cruel and pointless, and that there was no credible evidence to support it.
5. The Court also thought about whether or not to grant the petitioner’s request for compensatory compensation. The rights to life and personal liberty listed in Article 21 of the Constitution would be rendered meaningless if the court had only used its power of redress to order the release of those jail inmates who had been wrongfully detained without taking into account their rights to restitution.
The State must do all in its power to make up for the harm that its employees caused to the petitioner, violating the petitioner’s fundamental rights. Therefore, in this situation, the petitioner’s simple release from unlawful incarceration is insufficient compensation unless he is also made whole for the harm caused by the 14-year delay in his release.
As a result, in addition to paying the petitioner Rs. 5000, the State was required to pay Rs. 30,000 as a provisional remedy. Nevertheless, granting such a relief does not prevent the petitioner from filing a case against the state and its representatives in order to seek the proper damages.
Ratio Decidendi
The State must do all in its power to make up for the harm that its employees caused to the petitioner, violating the petitioner’s fundamental rights. Therefore, in this situation, the petitioner’s simple release from unlawful incarceration is insufficient compensation unless he is also made whole for the harm caused by the 14-year delay in his release.
As a result, in addition to paying the petitioner Rs. 5000, the State was required to pay Rs. 30,000 as a provisional remedy. Nevertheless, granting such a relief does not prevent the petitioner from filing a case against the state and its representatives in order to seek the proper damages.
Critical Analysis Rudul Sah v State of Bihar Case
In terms of the State’s responsibility and the granting of compensatory relief for the breach of Fundamental Rights, the Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar case is a landmark. The legality of compensatory remedy in the event that a person’s fundamental rights are violated has been established by this case. Additionally, the judgement in Kasturilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1] has been overturned by this one.
The Court has highlighted that if the Government is shielded from accountability for torts committed by its agents, it may enable them to abuse their authority to infringe upon the citizens’ Fundamental Rights.
According to the Supreme Court, when it comes to determining the safety and security of the populace, the unlawful acts of the government must fall under the ambit of constitutional jurisdiction.
Therefore, in the Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar case, the government was reprimanded by the Court because it was unable to constrain its behaviour within the bounds of constitutional authority, making clear the absolute necessity of a rule to oversee and restrain the government’s acts.
The Kasturilal case faced a lot of resistance. The provision of compensating relief is not specifically stated in our Constitution or endorsed by it. The Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar case, however, demonstrated the Supreme Court’s power to compensate a victim for a violation of his fundamental rights.
The case has explicitly stated that the petitioner’s suffering was neither his fault nor his duty; rather, it was caused by the State’s authorities, in whose hands the public places its highest confidence in the belief that the latter will uphold the petitioner’s Fundamental Rights.[2] The petitioner in the case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar was the victim of political inaction. Being the foundation of the Fundamental Rights, Article 21 in this instance became
In the Khatri v. State of Bihar case, monetary compensation was introduced into the situation for the first time through a writ petition.[3] According to the ruling in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, all future remedy and compensation decisions must be made exclusively at the discretion of the courts.[4]In a number of circumstances, the state may impose restrictions on citizens abusing their authority.
Regulating the state’s actions is important to keep it from abusing its power in the name of the common good and to stop it from violating the citizens’ Fundamental Rights. In the case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, a method for determining the
State’s obligation and returning the petitioner is urgently needed. It is evident from the worried
Conclusion
Although there are various constitutional protections as well as legislative measures in place to protect citizens’ fundamental rights. However, the number of incidents of torture and death in custody is increasing, which has drawn the attention of the judiciary as well as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
Law enforcement authorities have received a lot of complaints for misusing their position of trust and power. The victims of jail abuse are typically from the lower socioeconomic strata of society, with no access to power or resources and no protection for their human rights. On the other hand, those in positions of privilege are protected by the law. The ruling in the Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar case states that the state’s sovereign immunity will end if
The State’s arbitrary and pointless acts have a significant impact on citizens’ lives in a number of ways. In order to maintain the officials’ culpability for their tortious activities and advance a welfare state, the state’s liability must be co-extensive.
Regardless of their positions in the government, State officials must be held accountable for their tortuous activities in order to reduce bias and chaos in government management. From this point forward, the State and its representatives are not permitted to act arbitrarily or in a manner that directly jeopardizes the citizens’ Fundamental Rights in the exercise of their authority.
Please follow and like us:
Other Articles
You may also like
The Crime of Satire: A Story of the “Green Onion Bae”
Cause of Action to Appoint Arbitrator Commences from the “Breaking Point” Between Parties: Supreme Court
Right to Privacy in India: A Human Rights Perspective
