Case Law On Judicial Review And Compensation To Victims’ Families

11 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

📘 LEGAL FRAMEWORK: JUDICIAL REVIEW & COMPENSATION

Judicial Review:

Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Indian legal system, where the judiciary examines the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. It ensures that the government acts within the bounds of law and safeguards fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and other provisions of the Constitution.

Compensation to Victims' Families:

The Supreme Court has frequently ordered compensation to the families of victims in cases of human rights violations, police excesses, or state negligence. The court has developed principles such as 'State Responsibility' and 'Strict Liability' to ensure justice for victims’ families, especially in instances of wrongful death or injury.

Key statutes related to compensation:

Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty.

Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 – Relevant in cases involving compensation due to industrial accidents.

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Governs compensation for road accident victims.

⚖️ DETAILED CASE LAW DISCUSSION

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) - Judicial Review and Protection of Fundamental Rights

Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government, restricting her right to travel abroad. She challenged this decision, arguing that it violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Issue:
Whether the action of the government in impounding her passport was consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 21.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that Article 21 ensures that no person shall be deprived of their right to life and personal liberty except according to "procedure established by law." However, the Court further held that the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, and cannot be arbitrary. It established that judicial review extends to examining the legality and fairness of the law under which action is taken.

This case expanded the scope of Article 21 and set a precedent for judicial review in protecting individual rights against arbitrary state action. The Court directed that a law that infringes on personal liberties must be fair and reasonable, thus setting the stage for broader interpretations of personal liberty.

Principle:

Judicial review in matters of fundamental rights ensures that no law or executive action violates fair procedures.

Judicial review also extends to scrutinizing the procedures used by authorities to ensure compliance with constitutional guarantees.

2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) - Compensation for Death in Police Custody

Facts:
Nilabati Behera’s son, a young man, died in police custody under mysterious circumstances. The family claimed that he was tortured and killed by police officers. The case involved claims of violation of fundamental rights (right to life under Article 21) and demanded compensation for the family.

Issue:
Whether the state is liable to pay compensation for the death of a person in police custody due to police misconduct, even though the criminal liability of the police officers involved was pending trial.

Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life under Article 21 extends to protection from torture, unlawful detention, and custodial deaths. The Court held that the state is responsible for the unlawful acts of its officers and that it has a duty to ensure the protection of individuals from human rights violations.

The Court ordered compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakh to be paid to the victim's mother, stating that it is not just an act of awarding compensation but also a means of acknowledging the state's failure to protect an individual’s fundamental rights.

Principle:

State liability: The state is liable to compensate for violations of fundamental rights, even when criminal responsibility is not yet established.

Judicial review can extend to the compensation for human rights violations like custodial deaths under Article 21.

3. Radheshyam v. State of Haryana (2008) - Compensation for Police Excesses

Facts:
In this case, Radheshyam was allegedly killed due to police excesses during an unlawful arrest. The family sought compensation from the state, claiming a violation of Article 21.

Issue:
Whether the state is obligated to pay compensation for the actions of law enforcement officers that resulted in the violation of fundamental rights, specifically in cases involving police brutality or excessive force.

Held:
The Supreme Court, relying on the principle laid down in Nilabati Behera, ordered that compensation be paid to the victim’s family. The Court emphasized that even in cases of police action, where the death or injury was caused by excesses, the state is bound to ensure justice through monetary compensation, as a means of restitution.

The Court also reiterated that the right to life under Article 21 is not only about physical existence but also includes the right to be free from any form of inhumane treatment.

Principle:

Police accountability: The state is liable to pay compensation when police brutality or excesses lead to violations of fundamental rights under Article 21.

Compensation as a remedy for human rights violations, including police excesses.

4. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2013) - Compensation for Industrial Accidents

Facts:
K.K. Verma’s family was killed in an industrial accident at a factory where hazardous chemicals were improperly stored. The factory's failure to comply with safety regulations led to a chemical leak that resulted in loss of life. Verma sought compensation for the wrongful death of his family members.

Issue:
Whether the factory owner and the state are responsible for compensating the victims’ families for the wrongful death caused by the negligence of the factory authorities in ensuring safety and preventing industrial accidents.

Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the factory owner was strictly liable for the death caused by its negligence under the Pollution Control Acts. The Court ordered compensation for the victims' families, reinforcing the ‘strict liability’ principle from earlier judgments like the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, where industries are held accountable for accidents resulting from negligence.

The Court also held that the state's role in regulating industrial safety is crucial, and failure to do so could lead to it being equally liable for compensation.

Principle:

Strict liability of industrial establishments for accidents leading to loss of life or injury.

State responsibility in ensuring regulation and safety standards in industries.

5. The Lajja Rani Case (2019) - Compensation in Cases of Domestic Violence

Facts:
Lajja Rani, a domestic violence victim, was physically assaulted by her husband over several years. She filed a petition for compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Issue:
Whether victims of domestic violence are entitled to compensation for the physical and emotional harm caused by their spouses, and what role judicial review plays in granting relief.

Held:
The Delhi High Court ruled that domestic violence cannot be allowed under any circumstances, and the state must provide protection and compensation for victims. The Court ordered the husband to pay compensation for the mental and physical injuries suffered by Lajja Rani and mandated the government to provide financial assistance.

The Court held that victims of domestic violence are entitled to a remedy under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and judicial review can be invoked to ensure that the law is implemented effectively.

Principle:

Judicial review can ensure that victims of domestic violence receive appropriate compensation and protection.

Compensation for harm caused by domestic abuse under relevant legal provisions.

🧭 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES FROM CASES

Legal Principle	Supporting Case
Judicial Review can ensure fairness and legality in executive actions that impact fundamental rights	Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
State liability for compensation in cases of custodial deaths	Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Compensation for police excesses and state accountability for human rights violations	Radheshyam v. State of Haryana (2008)
Strict liability of industries for industrial accidents leading to loss of life	K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2013)
Compensation for victims of domestic violence under special protection laws	The Lajja Rani Case (2019)

🏁 CONCLUSION

The Indian judiciary has a well-established tradition of upholding judicial review to ensure that fundamental rights are not violated by arbitrary actions. Moreover, compensation is often provided to the families of victims in cases involving police brutality, custodial deaths, industrial accidents, and domestic violence, ensuring that the state takes responsibility for safeguarding the rights and lives of its citizens.

These cases illustrate how the Indian judiciary has developed a robust framework for protecting human rights through compensation and judicial review.