Supreme Court Awards Compensation for Custodial Death, Upholds State Liability under Article 21

Landmark Verdict in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa Recognizes Compensation as a Constitutional Remedy for Violation of Fundamental Right to Life

In a significant judgment delivered on March 24, 1993, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa held the State liable for the custodial death of Suman Behera, a 22-year-old youth who died due to injuries inflicted while in police custody. The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the victim’s mother and underscored that violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution demands not only punishment of the wrongdoers but also monetary reparation to the victim’s family.

The case arose when Suman Behera was taken into police custody on December 1, 1987, in connection with a theft investigation and subsequently found dead the next day on a railway track with multiple injuries. The police contended that the deceased escaped custody and died in a train accident; however, the Court found this defense unconvincing, particularly noting medical evidence that the injuries were consistent with police torture and could not have been caused by a train accident.

The Supreme Court directed an inquiry by the District Judge, Sundergarh, who concluded that the death occurred due to injuries inflicted while Suman Behera was in police custody. The Court examined this report and the evidence afresh, affirming the finding of custodial death.

The judgment emphasized that compensation for violation of fundamental rights is a constitutional remedy distinct from private law claims for damages. It clarified that sovereign immunity does not protect the State in cases of constitutional rights violations, and the Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution empowers it to award compensation as a form of public law relief.

The Court awarded Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation, directing the amount to be deposited in a scheduled bank in the petitioner’s name for three years, with interest payable to her during this period. Additionally, Rs. 10,000 was awarded to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The Court also emphasized that this award does not preclude any other legal remedies available to the petitioner, including criminal prosecution of the responsible police officials.

This judgment reiterates the judiciary’s proactive role in protecting fundamental rights, especially the right to life, and sets a precedent that custodial deaths warrant not only penal action but also monetary compensation to victims’ families under constitutional law.

Statutory provisions

Constitution of India Articles 21, 32, 226, 142; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 357(5); Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 141(3)

Detailed Analysis & Background:

The petitioner, Nilabati Behera, approached the Supreme Court through a letter treated as a writ petition under Article 32, seeking compensation for the custodial death of her son. The police arrested Suman Behera and detained him in custody. He was later found dead with multiple injuries on a railway track, allegedly caused by police torture. The police claimed he escaped and died in a train accident.

The Supreme Court’s approach was to examine whether the State violated the fundamental right to life of Suman Behera while he was in police custody. The Court noted the burden on the State to explain the injuries and death, which it failed to do satisfactorily.

A key aspect of the judgment is the rejection of the defense of “sovereign immunity” in constitutional remedies. Unlike private law tort claims where sovereign immunity may apply, the Court held that when fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution are violated by State agents, the State is strictly liable for compensation. This is a public law remedy enforceable under the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

The Court also discussed the nature of compensation awarded under Articles 32 and 226, emphasizing it as a distinct remedy aimed at enforcing constitutional rights, separate from ordinary civil damages claims. The remedy is designed to punish the State for violation of fundamental rights and to provide effective redress to victims who may lack access to civil remedies.

The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,50,000, considering the deceased’s age and income, with a provision to adjust this amount if other compensation claims are made. The payment mode was structured to provide financial security to the petitioner.

The judgment also calls upon the State to initiate further action against the police officers responsible for the custodial death, highlighting the necessity of accountability.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa has reinforced that custodial deaths are grave violations of constitutional rights and that the State cannot shield itself behind sovereign immunity. The Court’s power to award compensation under its writ jurisdiction is a vital tool for vindicating the right to life and ensuring justice for victims of State excesses.

This judgment remains a cornerstone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence on custodial deaths and the enforcement of fundamental rights through public law remedies.

Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 43349