Rudul Sah v State of Bihar (Supreme Court, 1983) — compensation in a habeas corpus petition

It is the first case in which the Supreme Court awarded monetary compensation for the violation of a fundamental right in a proceeding under Article 32. Nilabati Behera later supplied the doctrinal basis; this case supplied the precedent.

"Though the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of Sessions, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, on June 3, 1968 he was released from the jail on October 16, 1982, that is to say, more than 14 years after he was acquitted." He petitioned for habeas corpus and asked also for rehabilitation, medical expenses and compensation for the illegal incarceration. When the petition came up on 22 November 1982 the State informed the Court that he had already been released; the State's explanation for the detention, that he had been of unsound mind, was unsupported. The Bench was Chandrachud C.J., Amarendra Nath Sen and Ranganath Misra JJ.; the Chief Justice delivered the judgment on 1 August 1983.

1. Can the Supreme Court, in a petition under Article 32, order the State to pay compensation for the deprivation of a fundamental right?
2. What relief follows on the facts?

The power. Article 32 empowers the Court to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. "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 of 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 a violators in the payment of monetary compensation. 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. Respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy."

The relief. "the refusal to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly" violated. "Therefore, as an interim measure the State must pay to the petitioner a further sum of Rs. 30,000 in addition to the sum of Rs 5,000 already paid by it. This order will not preclude the petitioner from bringing a suit to recover appropriate damages from the State and its erring officials."

In a petition under Article 32 the Supreme Court may award compensation for the deprivation of a fundamental right; to confine the remedy to release would empty Article 21 of content where the violation has already run its course. The award is a palliative and does not bar a civil suit for full damages.