Case Law On Custodial Deaths And Compensation
✅ What is a Custodial Death?
Custodial death refers to the death of a person who is under the custody of law enforcement agencies such as the police, judiciary (judicial custody), or prison authorities. These deaths may be caused by:
Torture or assault by police or prison officials.
Negligence in providing medical care.
Inhumane conditions or mental torture.
Suicide due to mistreatment.
Custodial deaths violate fundamental rights, especially:
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty.
Article 22 – Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.
🔹 Legal Basis for Compensation
The Supreme Court of India has held in multiple cases that:
Compensation can be awarded for the violation of fundamental rights under Article 32 or 226.
Even without criminal conviction of the officials involved, compensation may be awarded through public law remedy for breach of fundamental rights.
🔹 Important Case Laws on Custodial Deaths and Compensation
1. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 1993 SC 1960
Facts:
Nilabati Behera’s 22-year-old son, Suman Behera, was taken into police custody.
The next day, his dead body was found on a railway track with multiple injuries.
Legal Issue:
Whether the State is liable to pay compensation for the death caused in police custody, even if no criminal liability is established against the officials.
Judgment:
Supreme Court awarded ₹1.5 lakh as compensation to the mother.
Held that the right to life (Article 21) is non-negotiable, and compensation is an appropriate public law remedy for its violation.
Distinguished between public law remedy (for compensation) and private law remedy (like criminal trial or civil suit).
Significance:
Landmark ruling that established the principle of constitutional tort.
Opened the door for victims to receive monetary relief from the State for custodial deaths.
2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 610
Facts:
D.K. Basu, a social activist, filed a writ petition based on reports of custodial deaths and torture.
Legal Issue:
Whether guidelines could be issued to prevent custodial violence and ensure accountability.
Judgment:
Supreme Court laid down 11 mandatory guidelines for arrest and detention (e.g., informing relatives, medical check-ups, memo of arrest).
Held that custodial torture and death is a direct violation of Article 21, and the State is liable to pay compensation.
Also held that responsible officers can be personally prosecuted.
Significance:
Established preventive safeguards to reduce custodial deaths.
Forms the basis of police accountability and procedure in arrests today.
Compensation is a necessary consequence of State failure.
3. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 1983 SC 1086
Facts:
Rudul Sah was illegally detained in jail for 14 years after being acquitted.
He filed a habeas corpus petition for his release and compensation.
Legal Issue:
Whether compensation can be granted under Article 32 for illegal detention by the State.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court awarded ₹30,000 interim compensation, stating that without compensation, the right to liberty is meaningless.
Declared that public law remedy must go beyond mere release.
Significance:
First major case recognizing compensation for violation of fundamental rights.
Opened the door for monetary relief in cases of unlawful detention and custodial abuse.
4. Smt. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay v. State of West Bengal (1994)
Court: Calcutta High Court
Facts:
The petitioner’s son died in police custody. The post-mortem revealed multiple injuries indicating torture.
No medical care was provided.
Judgment:
The Court awarded compensation of ₹2 lakhs, holding the State vicariously liable.
Emphasized the duty of the State to ensure humane treatment of detainees.
Directed disciplinary action against responsible police officials.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that custodial torture is unconstitutional.
Courts can award compensation even before conviction of the accused officers.
5. Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. (2005)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2005) 9 SCC 631
Facts:
Several undertrial prisoners died in police custody in suspicious circumstances in Madhya Pradesh.
Allegations of brutal torture and custodial killings surfaced.
Judgment:
Supreme Court condemned systematic custodial violence, stating it brings shame to the justice system.
Directed the State to conduct independent inquiries and provide compensation to the families.
Observed that custodial violence undermines the rule of law.
Significance:
Stressed urgent need for police reforms and State accountability.
Recognized psychological trauma caused to victims and their families.
🔹 Conclusion
The judiciary has repeatedly emphasized that custodial deaths are serious violations of human rights, and compensation is not a favor, but a constitutional obligation of the State.
Key Takeaways:
Compensation is available even without a criminal conviction.
Courts apply public law remedies to protect fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments