CIA 1

JURISPRUDENCE
Case Analysis on
Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar(1983) 4
SCC 141

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY:

1
FACTS

In 1953, Rudul Sah was arrested for murdering his wife. On June 3, 1968, the additional session
judge of Muzaffarpur declared him innocent, and he directed his release from prison. After being
acquitted, he had to serve another 14 years in prison and was finally released from prison on October
16, 1982. His plight was emphasized in the media in 1968 and led him to file the PIL for serious
injustice.

However, Rudul Sah was released when PIL appeared in court. Despite this, they were instructed to
send a notification to the State of Bihar to explain some of the prayers made by the appellant in the
petition. The prayers are as follows:

1. The petitioner asks the government to provide medical services;

2. The petitioner sought ancillary relief including payment for his rehabilitation;

3. Requests compensation for his illegal imprisonment for more than 14 years.

The court also stated that they wanted to respond promptly to the notice of the cause, but they did not
provide any explanation within 4 months. On April 16, 1983, Shri Alakh Deo Singh, the warden of
Muzaffarpur Central Prison, submitted an affidavit in compliance with the order.

It is said that Rudul Sah was of unsound mind when he passed the acquittal order, although when he
sent the report to the civil surgeon, he reported that Rudul Sah was mentally healthy at the time of his
acquittal. In addition, another question is whether it took 14 years to correct his mental imbalance.
However, the government did not produce any medical reports to support any diagnosis of whether
he was insane, nor they provided any evidence as to which drugs were prescribed and how long he
was diagnosed.

2
ISSUES RAISED

 Whether the Supreme Court can award compensation under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution
for breach of a fundamental right or not?
 Does Article 21 cover the right to compensation for violations of fundamental rights?

3
JUDGEMENT

The court held that if the court was limited to releasing unlawful detainees by order without doing
anything to improve their lives, Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal freedom,
would be deprived of its meaning. The court held “The right to compensation is a palliative means
for acts of illegal instruments that act in the name of the public interest. These acts of illegal
instruments act in the name of the public interest and provide the state with power as a shield.”

The court held that the compensation is palliative in order to give the right to life under article 21 a
better meaning. It also stated that the right to enforce the law enforcement power was transferred to
the Supreme Court under Article 32. The right specified in the third part of the Constitution is itself a
basic right.

Therefore, the court ’s final judgment was that it ordered the state to pay the petitioner 30,000 rupees
as an interim measure in addition to the 5,000 rupees already paid.

4
ANALYSIS

Rudul Shah’s case is a landmark case in the field of state liability. It is considered to be particularly
important because it led to the emergence of compensatory jurisprudence for violations of
fundamental rights under the Constitution. In this case, it is noteworthy that the Indian Constitution
does not clearly provide for the award of compensation and that the judgment is based on the court ’s
interpretation of the scope of its right to remedy. This is the first case since the establishment of the
Supreme Court, which paid someone monetary compensation for violating the basic rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. Victims have the right to claim damages in the civil law of torts,
which is complementary to monetary compensation and not excluded. It emphasizes the inefficiency
of the individual responsible for the life and freedom of the citizens he has promised to serve, and
this inefficiency not only damages the individual but also the foundation of the democratic
government. This case highlights the fate of a person. Rudul Sah was punished for something he did
not do, but because the system he relied on caused him to fail in the worst possible way.

Following this case, the Supreme Court awarded compensation in several cases. In the subsequent
early cases in which this remedy was considered, the Court held that compensation would be
awarded only in ‘appropriate cases’ which seemed to primarily involve life and liberty rights and
were mostly cases relating to illegal detention and unlawful deaths. Nonetheless, in later cases, it
became clear that the scope had become significantly wider. Since economic and social rights are
often considered by the Supreme Court under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution (the right to
life which is a fundamental right), compensation as a constitutional remedy may be available for
violations of these rights. For example, in the case Paschim Banga Khet Samity v State of West
Bengal (1996 SCC(4)37), where the Supreme Court held that the right to life included the right to
health, compensation was granted by way of redress with explicit reference to the Rudul Sah case.

The Court in this landmark case was correct in deciding the matter. This Judgement overruled the
Kasturilal Raliaram v. State of U.P 1. In Kasturilal’s case the Court held that the state was immune
from liability for the tortious act done by its policemen, who caught the plaintiff under suspicion
during night and put him in lock-up. Unfortunately the state succeeded in getting sovereign
immunity as the apex court came to the conclusion that the tortious act was done in the exercise of a
sovereign function. The state liability bill was introduced in the Parliament in 1967, but it remained
as a bill and could never be passed. Thus a chance of codifying the law of torts with regard to state
1
 Kasturilal Raliaram v. State of U.P, AIR 1965 SC 1039
5
acts was lost. The Kasturilal decision has been criticized on many counts 2. One reason sounds good
that the taking care of the property seized and duty to return the same is just like the duty of a
statutory or contractual bailee and cannot fall within the sovereign powers3.

2
H.M SEERVAI, Constitutional Law of India1137
3
State of Gujarat v. Memon Mohd, AIR 1967 SC 1885 (India). See also, B.P. Dwivedi, “Form Sah to Saheli” 36 JILI 99
(1994)
6
CONCLUSION

Human rights are traditionally known as ‘natural rights’ and can be said to have their origin from the
divine law of nature. The right to life and liberty has been held to be a basic human right. Through its
various pronouncements, the Supreme Court of India has been successful in creating human rights
jurisprudence and helping the poor people of our country. But only a few could be benefited and it
was thought that there should be a separate agency to deal with the cases of human rights violations.
Indian Parliament enacted the protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and a high-powered and multi-
member National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) headed by a former Supreme Court Chief
Justice was constituted to monitor and probe into the human rights violations. Despite the
constitutional and statutory safeguards in favor of the individual’s liberty, the growing incidents of
custodial torture and death in our society have become a matter of concern both for the higher
judiciary and the National Human Rights Commission 4, which has awarded compensation in many
cases. Complaints of abuse of power and torture to suspects by the police in custody or by other law
enforcing agencies are on rise. Generally, the victims of custodial wrongs belong to the weaker
sections of our society or they are either women or children. The rich are able to get legal shelter, but
the poor, the down trodden and the ignorant with little or no political or financial power, are the
sufferers and practically enjoy no human rights.

4
NHRC Annual Reports revealed 444 custodial deaths in 1995-96, which were doubled (888) in 1996-97, as quoted in
S.C.Raina. “Custodial Torture in Police Stations” 5 NCLJ 1(2000)
7