9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Custodial Death Allegation 2. Liability of the State for Compensation 3. Quantum of Compensation 4. Legal Principles for Awarding Compensation Summary: 1. Custodial Death Allegation: The case originated from a letter dated 14.9.1988 by Smt. Nilabati Behera, treated as a Writ Petition u/s Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming compensation for the death of her son, Suman Behera, in police custody. Suman Behera was taken into police custody on 1.12.1987 and found dead on a railway track the next day with multiple injuries. The petitioner alleged custodial death due to police-inflicted injuries. The State of Orissa and its police officers denied this, claiming Suman Behera escaped custody and died in a train accident. An inquiry by the District Judge concluded that Suman Behera died from injuries inflicted in police custody, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. 2. Liability of the State for Compensation: The Court examined the liability of the State to pay compensation for violation of the fundamental right to life u/s Article 21. The Court referenced past decisions, including Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, which established that compensation could be awarded in public law for contravention of fundamental rights, based on strict liability, and that the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply in such cases. 3. Quantum of Compensation: The Court determined the appropriate compensation for the custodial death of Suman Behera. Based on the evidence, including the deceased's age (22 years) and monthly income (Rs. 1200 to Rs. 1500), the Court awarded Rs. 1,50,000 to the petitioner. Additionally, Rs. 10,000 was awarded to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The compensation amount was to be deposited in a scheduled bank in the petitioner's name for three years, with only interest payable during this period. 4. Legal Principles for Awarding Compensation: The Court clarified the distinction between public law remedies for violation of fundamental rights and private law remedies for tortious acts. It emphasized that compensation in public law is based on strict liability and is a remedy for the contravention of fundamental rights, independent of any private law action. The Court also referenced international principles, such as Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which supports the enforceability of compensation for unlawful detention. In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and the State of Orissa was directed to pay the specified compensation, with further directions for ensuring compliance and pursuing accountability for the custodial death.
|
