Compensation for violation of fundamental rights
Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights is an essential aspect of constitutional law in India. The Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has evolved the concept of awarding monetary compensation for infringement of Fundamental Rights, particularly under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). This is primarily a public law remedy (not civil or criminal liability), meant to provide immediate relief for egregious violations by the State or its agencies.
Below is a detailed explanation of the doctrine with key case laws (more than five) that have shaped the jurisprudence in India:
š¹ Legal Basis
Article 32 (for Supreme Court) and Article 226 (for High Courts) empower courts to issue directions or orders, including compensation, for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Article 21 has been interpreted broadly to include right to dignity, clean environment, legal aid, privacy, etc.
Compensation is awarded for violations by State authorities, not private individuals.
š¹ Key Case Laws Explained in Detail
1. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141
Facts:
Rudul Sah was kept in jail for 14 years even after his acquittal.
Filed a writ petition under Article 32, seeking release and compensation.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that keeping a person in jail after acquittal is a gross violation of Article 21.
Court awarded compensation of ā¹30,000, stating that compensation can be granted under Article 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Significance:
This was a landmark case that first recognized the concept of monetary compensation for violation of fundamental rights under public law.
2. Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985) 4 SCC 677
Facts:
Bhim Singh, an MLA, was illegally detained by the police to prevent him from attending an Assembly session.
His wife filed a habeas corpus petition.
Judgment:
Court held that the arrest was malicious and a clear violation of Article 21.
Ordered the State to pay ā¹50,000 as compensation.
Significance:
Extended Rudul Sah doctrine.
Asserted that personal liberty cannot be taken away arbitrarily.
The Court used Article 21 read with Article 32 for awarding compensation.
3. Saheli v. Commissioner of Police (1990) 1 SCC 422
Facts:
A boy died due to beating by police officers during an illegal raid.
His mother filed a writ petition under Article 32.
Judgment:
Court awarded ā¹75,000 as compensation to the mother.
Held that Delhi Administration was liable vicariously for the acts of its police officers.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of State liability.
Established that State is responsible for acts of its servants if committed in the course of duty.
4. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
Petitionerās son was taken into police custody and later found dead on railway tracks.
Alleged custodial death.
Judgment:
Court held the State liable for violation of Article 21.
Awarded ā¹1,50,000 as compensation to the mother.
Key Observations:
Distinguished public law remedy from private law action for tort.
Emphasized that compensation under Article 32 or 226 is for constitutional wrongs, not dependent on civil/criminal liability.
Significance:
One of the most cited cases for custodial deaths.
Reinforced that right to life includes protection against torture and death in custody.
5. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
PIL filed highlighting custodial torture and deaths.
Court framed detailed guidelines for arrest and detention.
Judgment:
Held that custodial torture is a violation of Article 21.
Recognized that monetary compensation is a legitimate remedy.
Directed mandatory procedures to prevent abuse during arrest.
Significance:
Considered a watershed judgment in custodial jurisprudence.
Made compensation a central remedy for rights violations.
6. Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000) 2 SCC 465
Facts:
A Bangladeshi woman was gang-raped by employees of Indian Railways in a railway building.
Petition filed by a third party (not the victim), Chandrima Das, a practicing lawyer.
Judgment:
Held that State was liable since the crime occurred in premises maintained by a public authority.
Granted ā¹10 lakhs compensation.
Said that even non-citizens are protected under Article 21.
Significance:
Expanded scope of Article 21 to foreign nationals.
Held that State can be vicariously liable for acts of employees in official premises.
7. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987) 1 SCC 395
Facts:
Leakage of oleum gas from a chemical plant in Delhi caused injury and death.
A PIL was filed for compensation and stricter liability.
Judgment:
Introduced the concept of āAbsolute Liabilityā for industries involved in hazardous activities.
Laid foundation for environmental compensation under Article 21.
Significance:
Created a new liability standard beyond "strict liability".
Recognized right to clean environment as part of Article 21.
Compensation ordered from industries under constitutional obligations.
š¹ Summary of Key Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Public Law Remedy | Compensation under Articles 32 or 226 is not based on torts, but on violation of fundamental rights. |
| State Liability | The State is vicariously liable for acts of its employees if done in the course of employment. |
| Custodial Deaths/Torture | Courts grant compensation even without a full trial in cases of prima facie rights violations. |
| Quantum of Compensation | Depends on facts, nature of violation, and injury suffered; there's no fixed formula. |
| Citizens and Non-Citizens | Both are entitled to protection under Article 21. |
| Environmental Damage | Violation of right to clean air and water is actionable under Article 21 with compensation. |
š Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has evolved a powerful remedy in the form of compensatory relief for violation of fundamental rights, especially under Article 21. Through judicial creativity, courts have filled legislative and administrative gaps to ensure accountability, human dignity, and justice for victims of state excesses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments