Innocent Man in Prison

Shaunak Choudhury | Student of SVKM’s NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law | 11th May 2020

Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141

Facts

The petitioner, Rudul Sah was a prisoner in Bihar who was acquitted by the Court of Sessions, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, on 3^rdJune 1968. He was released from the jail on 16^th October 1982. The petitioner was kept behind bars after being acquitted for a period of 14 years. He filed a writ petition of habeas corpus under Article 32 in the Supreme court to be released from the prison but by the time the petition was presented before the Supreme Court the petitioner had been released. But the Supreme Court directed a Notice to show cause be issued to the State of Bihar for the other prayers that the petitioner had. His first prayer of being released from the prison was fulfilled but his prayers for compensation for medical care (2^ndprayer), ex gratia payment for rehabilitation (3^rd prayer) and the compensation for his illegal detention (4^th prayer) were pending before the court. 

There was no response to the Show Cause Notice from the State of Bihar, so the Court had to pass a specific order asking for the government to respond to the prayers.  The Jailor of the Muzaffarpur Central Jail, Shri Alakh Deo Singh filed an affidavit responding to this order, stated that the reason for not releasing Rudul Sah was that the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur had ordered on 30^th August 1968, that although the petitioner had been acquitted he was to remain detained in prison.

The Law Department was made aware of the fact that Rudul Sah during the passing of the order for his acquittal was of unsound mind. The Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur, reported that petitioner was not of unsound mind and that was immediately communicated to the Law Department. But the Law Department then waited 5 and a half years for issuing the letter for petitioner’s release (Civil Surgeon communicated the fact that the petitioner was of sound mind on 21^stFebruary 1977 and the letter was dated 14^th October 1982).

The State never produced any evidence to suggest that Rudul Sah was insane on the date of the order of his acquittal, during the hearing of this case either.

Since the petitioner had been released before the hearing of the case, the bench consisting of Chief Justice Ranganathan Misra, Justice Y. V. Chandrachud and Justice A.N. Sen, focused upon the matters brought by the 3 remaining prayers. 

Issues of the case

1. If compensation can be provided to a petitioner who has filed a habeas corpus petition (Under Article 32) in the Supreme Court. 
2. If the petitioner can file a civil suit to seek proper compensation from the State of Bihar for the wrongdoing.

Judgement

In the matter around payment of money to the petitioner, the bench found that he was deserving of compensation for the fact that his fundamental right to life and liberty was wrongfully usurped by the State. So, the court gave compensation to the extent of the violation of the fundamental right. It ordered the State government of Bihar to pay a sum of Rupees 30,000, within two weeks, in addition to the amount of Rupees 5000 it had already given to the petitioner. The court found that just declaring the act of wrongly imprisoning the petitioner would be mere “lip service”

The Supreme Court observed he can file a civil suit against the government to recover damages that he incurred for being wrongly imprisoned for 14 years. The compensation provided by the Supreme Court was a temporary fix for the petitioner until he files the civil suit. The Court could not leave the petitioner with no finances whatsoever.

The bench condemned the actions of the State of Bihar as they had violated the petitioners right to life for 14 years, an unimaginable occurrence. And the Supreme Court upheld the right of a person to file a writ petition of habeas corpusunder Article 32.