RUDUL SAH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 01-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 16 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
lil . 
' 
H 
Jo8 
RUDULSAH 
• 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER 
August 1, 1983 
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., AMARENDRA NATH SEN 
AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ;J 
Constitution Of lndia-Arl. 32-Scope of-Whether in a lulbeas corpus' 
petition under Art. 32 Supreme Court can grant compensation for . deprivation of a 
fundamental right. 
CorJstifUtion of India-Ari. 21-Scope of-Whethei covers right to 
compensation for its violation. 
The petitioner who was detained in prison for over 14 years after his 
acquittal filed a habeas corpus petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution 
praying for his release on the-ground that his detention in the jaiJ was unlaw-
ful. He also asked for certain other reliefs including compensation for his 
·'· illegal detention. When the petition came up for hearing the Court was 
informed by the respondent State that ·the petitioner had already been released 
from the jail. 
Allowing the petition, 
HELD : The petitioner's detention in the prison after his acquittal was 
wholly unjustified. 
Article 32 confers power on the Supren1e Court to issue directions or 
orders or appropriate writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred 
by Part III of the Constitution. 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 io passing orders of felease from illega I detention. One of the 
teliing ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented 
and due compliance with the rnaridate of Article ~1 secured, is to mulct its 
violators in the payme11;t 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 illdividuals is the true baStion 
of demoCracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers 
to their rights. [513 A-C, 514 B-EJ 
In the circumstances of the instant case the refusal to pass an order of 
compensation in favour of the petitiorier wHl be doing mere lip-service to his 
fundamental right to liberty which 
t~e State Government has so grossly 
I 
!ltiriUL SAH v. BIHAR (Chandrachud, C.J.) 
5o9 
Violated. Therefore, as an interim measure the State must pay to the prti· 
tioner a further sum of Rs. 30,000 in addition to the Sum Of Rs. 5,000 already 
A 
paid by it. This order will not preclude the petidoner from bringing a suit to re.: 
criver appropr_iate damages from the State ind its erring officials. [514 B, F, HJ 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1987 
of 1982. 
(Under Article 32 of tM Constitution of India) 
Mrs. K. Hingorani for the Petitioner. 
D. Goburdhan for the Respondent. 
. 
. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . 
CllANDRACHUD, C.J. : This Writ Petition discloses a sordid 
and disturbing state of affairs. 
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. By this Habeas Corpus 
petition, the petitioner asks for his release on the gro.und that his 
detention in the jail ·is unla-wful. 
He has also as"ked for certain 
ancillary reliefS like ·rehabilitation, reimbursements of expenses which 
he may incur for medical treatment and compensation for the illegal 
incarceration. 
This petition came up before us on' November 22, 1982 when 
we were informed by Shri Goburdhan, counsel for the State of Bihar, 
that the petitioner was already released from the jail. The relief 
sought by. the petitioner for his release thus became infructuous but 
despite that, we directed that a Notice to show cause be issued to 
the State of Bihar regarding prayers 2, 3 and 4 of the petition. By ' 
prayer No. 2 the petitioner asks for medical treatment at Government 
expense, by prayer. No. 3 he asks for an ex gratia payment for his 
rehabilitation, while by prayer No. 4 he asks· for compensation for 
his illegal detention in the jail for over 14 years. 
We expected a prompt _respon.se to the Show Cause Notice 
from the Bihar Government at least at this late stage, but they 
offered no explanation for over four months. The Writ Petition 
was listed before us on March 31, 1983 when Shri Goburdhan 
restated that the petitioner had been already released from the jail. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.