RUDUL SAH VS STATE OF BIHAR : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court held in Rudul Sah Vs State of Bihar 1983 AIR 1086 that compensation can be granted to aggrieved persons under Article 32 against violation of Fundamental Rights.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Petitioner was acquitted by Court of Sessions, Muzzafarpur, Bihar on 3rd June, 1968, but he was released from jail after more than 14 years on October 16, 1982. The Petitioner filed habeus corpus petition before the Supreme Court wherein he prayed inter alia for his release and compensation.
FINDINGS OF THE SURPEME COURT
The Supreme Court sought explanation from Government of Bihar for keeping the petitioner in jail for more than 14 years after acquittal. The Government stated that the Petitioner was insane and on account of the same he was not released, but no proper evidence regarding the insanity was tendered.
The Supreme Court noted that Article 32 confers power on the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in nature of habeus corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III is “guaranteed”, that is to say, the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution is itself a fundamental right.
The Supreme Court observed that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through civil and criminal courts. A money claim has to be agitated before a court of lowest grade competent to try it. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether it can award compensation under Article 32 of the Constitution consequential upon deprivation of Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court observed that 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. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. 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. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner rights.
The Supreme Court directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in addition of Rs. 5,000/- already paid.
___________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.
