Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa

Facts

The petitioner's son died in police custody after being arrested; his body was found on a railway track. The mother moved the Supreme Court seeking compensation for the custodial death, alleging violation of the right to life. The State contended the death was not its responsibility.

Issues

• Can the Supreme Court and High Courts award compensation in writ proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 for infringement of fundamental rights?
• Is such public-law compensation distinct from, and additional to, ordinary civil remedies?

Arguments

The petitioner argued the State was liable for the custodial death and that constitutional courts must forge new remedies to vindicate the right to life. The State pleaded sovereign immunity and contended that the appropriate remedy lay in a civil suit, not writ jurisdiction.

Held

The Court held that constitutional courts have not only the power but an obligation to grant compensation under Articles 32 and 226 where Article 21 is flagrantly infringed by the State, notwithstanding the availability of civil or criminal remedies. The remedy is in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights, to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available. Compensation was awarded; the State retains its right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer. The Court reaffirmed Khatri (II) and (IV) that it must forge new tools to vindicate fundamental rights.

Ratio decidendi

Award of compensation in writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 is a constitutional public-law remedy for established violation of fundamental rights (notably Article 21), independent of private-law damages and immune to the plea of sovereign immunity.

Significance

Landmark entrenching monetary compensation as a constitutional remedy and a cornerstone of custodial-death and human-rights jurisprudence; relied on by the chapter as the decision clarifying the Court's remedial powers under Articles 32 and 226.

Related