Kandeep Shravan | SASTRA Deemed to be University | 4th July 2020
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
Facts:
A letter was sent by the petitioner Nilabati Behera to the Supreme Court. This letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 for deciding the claim of compensation due to the consequential death of the Petitioner’s son Suman Behera who had been taken into police custody. The petitioner’s son’s age was about 22 years who was taken into police custody for an investigation regarding an offence of theft and was detained at the Police outpost. He was found dead on a railway track near Police outpost the next day and was discovered that he wasn’t released from custody. The multiple wounds on his body ruled out the fact it was a natural death. The medical report which was prepared by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem also contained the medical evidence which consisted of his testimony. This excluded the possibility of all injuries caused to the petitioner’s son due to a train accident which indicated that these injuries resulted from merciless beatings given to him by the police.
Issue:
- Whether the Supreme court or High Court can exercise their jurisdiction under Art.32 and Art.226 to pass an order for granting monetary compensation violating the fundamental rights?
Petitioner’s Contention:
The Counsel for petitioner contended that the death of petitioner’s son was custodial, depriving the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The stand taken by the Solicitor general was in contrary to the findings of the District judge and it was stated by the petitioner that only on valid grounds, the decision of a District court judge can be rejected.
Respondent’s Argument:
A defence was taken by the Solicitor general that the petitioner’s son had managed to escape police custody and the police wasn’t able to apprehend him despite continuous searching and was run over by a train, thus denying the custodial death allegations.
Judgment:
The Supreme court held that the award of compensation can be proceeded under Article 32 and Art 226 of the Constitution and is a remedy available under public law. This is based on a strict liability on the state for fundamental right contravention. This principle of sovereign immunity cannot be applied here in cases of violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Part III even though it may be used as a defence in private law issue based on tort. Further a differentiation was provided by the court between these two laws in nature of awarding compensation. Hence, the court observed that the aim of public law is to ensure that the citizens live under a legal system which protects people’s rights and nurture it through public power civilization. It was further observed by the court that in situations where the only remedy possible is compensation, it cannot be substituted with any other form, as this a claim for compensation on deprivation of fundamental rights and not a mere claim for damage under tort law.
The Supreme Court ordered the State to pay a compensation sum of Rs.1,50,000 to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.10,000 to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Board.
Leave a Reply