Law Maker

Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar

Supreme Court of India, 1 August 1983, 3 judges, 1983 AIR 1086, 1983 SCR (3) 508, 1983 SCC (4) 141

In a habeas corpus petition under Article 32, the Supreme Court can order the State to pay monetary compensation for a clear violation of the right to liberty under Article 21, without first sending the victim to a civil suit.

Facts

The petitioner was acquitted by the Court of Sessions, Muzaffarpur, in 1968 but was released from jail only on 16 October 1982, more than 14 years later. He filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 and also sought medical treatment, rehabilitation and compensation. By the time it was heard he had been released. The State's only explanation, a jailor's affidavit, said he had been of unsound mind, but produced no medical record or treatment details, and gave no reason why he was held for over five years after the Civil Surgeon reported him normal in 1977. The Court found his detention after acquittal wholly unjustified.

Questions before the Court

  1. Whether, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, the Supreme Court can order payment of money as compensation for deprivation of a fundamental right.
  2. Whether the petitioner should be left to recover damages through a civil suit.

What the Court held

  • The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for enforcement of Part III rights is itself a fundamental right. Article 32 is not a substitute for ordinary suits to enforce money claims, but the Court can order payment of money where it is compensation consequential on deprivation of a fundamental right.
  • Where the claim is not factually controversial and a civil court would have to decree damages, refusing compensation would be mere lip-service to the right to liberty. Article 21 would be denuded of significant content if the Court could only order release from illegal detention.
  • The State must repair the damage done by its officers and may have recourse against them. The State was ordered to pay Rs. 30,000 within two weeks, in addition to Rs. 5,000 already paid, as an interim measure.
  • The order is a palliative and does not prevent the petitioner from suing the State and its erring officials for appropriate damages.

Why it matters

The judgment holds that the Supreme Court can award monetary compensation under Article 32 for violation of Article 21, as a means of securing compliance with the right to liberty. It treats compensation as a remedy against the State for the unlawful acts of its instrumentalities, while leaving the ordinary suit for damages open. It also said the Patna High Court should itself examine unlawful detentions in Bihar jails.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders to release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violaters in the payment of monetary compensation.”
Chandrachud C.J.Page 5 of the judgment
“It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of Courts, Civil and Criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it.”
Chandrachud C.J.Page 5 of the judgment
“The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well-known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy.”
Chandrachud C.J.Page 5 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Case and bench

Parties
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Another
Case
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1987 of 1982
Decided
1 August 1983
Bench
Chandrachud, Y.V. (CJ), Sen, Amarendra Nath (J), Misra Rangnath
Opinions
Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Chandrachud C.J.

Questions on this case

7 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

  1. Question 1, Law of Torts Practice Set 1

    In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), where the petitioner remained in jail for over 14 years after his acquittal, the Supreme Court held that in a petition under Article 32 it:

    1. A. could not award compensation, which had to be claimed only in a civil suit for damages
    2. B. could order the State to pay monetary compensation for the violation of his liberty
    3. C. could direct payment of compensation only by the erring jail officials personally
    4. D. could award compensation only after the State admitted negligence on the part of officers
    Show the answer

    B. could order the State to pay monetary compensation for the violation of his liberty

    Rudul Sah (AIR 1983 SC 1086) held that Article 32 empowers the Court to order payment of compensation for deprivation of a fundamental right; the State was directed to pay a further Rs. 30,000, without barring a regular suit for damages.

  2. Question 2, Law of Torts Practice Set 1

    In Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985), where a member of the Legislative Assembly had been illegally arrested and detained, the Supreme Court:

    1. A. directed the arresting officers to be prosecuted, but no more
    2. B. left him to file a civil suit for damages against the police
    3. C. declined compensation, since he had already been released
    4. D. directed the State to pay him Rs. 50,000 as compensation
    Show the answer

    D. directed the State to pay him Rs. 50,000 as compensation

    Holding that his constitutional rights had been violated, the Court in Bhim Singh (AIR 1986 SC 494, decided 22 Nov 1985) relied on Rudul Sah and directed the State to pay him Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation, although he was no longer in detention.

  3. Question 3, Law of Torts Practice Set 1

    In State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962), the State was held vicariously liable for:

    1. A. the loss of gold seized by the police and kept negligently in their custody
    2. B. the detention of a prisoner in jail for several years after his acquittal
    3. C. the death of a man knocked down by a Government jeep driven rashly
    4. D. the death of a man in police custody as a result of injuries inflicted on him
    Show the answer

    C. the death of a man knocked down by a Government jeep driven rashly

    In Vidyawati ([1962] Supp 2 SCR 989) a Government jeep being taken from the repair shop for the Collector's use was driven rashly and killed a man; the State was held liable like any other employer. The gold seizure is Kasturilal, the custodial death is Nilabati Behera, and the post-acquittal detention is Rudul Sah.