Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa

Title of the Case: – Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa

Citation: –                  AIR 1993, SC 1960 

Case No.: –                   WRIT PETITION (Civil) NO. 488 OF 1988

Court: –                         Supreme Court of India

Appellant:                  SMT. NILABATI BEHERA ALIAS LALIT BEHERA

Respondent: –           STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Bench: –                  Verma, Jagdish Sharan (J) Anand,A.S.  (J) VenkataChala N. (J)

Date of Judgement:- 24/03/1993

Facts: –

• It is acknowledged that Suman Behera was arrested at 8 a.m. on December 1, 1987, for investigation involving the offence of theft and he was detained at the police outpost.
• that he was discovered dead on Next day on a railway track close to Police Outpost Jeraikela without having been released from detention. Suman Behera’s many injuries contributed to his untimely death.
• In the instant case, a letter was sent by Smt. Nilabati Behera to the Supreme Court stated that her twenty-two-year-old son, Suman Behera had died in police custody after being inflicted with several injuries.
• The respondents claimed that the petitioner’s son was killed after being ran over by a train after he managed to escape from police custody at around three in the morning on December 2, 1987.
• If the petitioner’s son did escape from police custody as claimed in his defence, there is no convincing independent evidence of any search performed by the police to locate him.
• Suo moto action was taken by the honourable court and turned into a writ petition in accordance with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
• The petitioner claimed compensation for the violation of her son’s fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
• The burden is, therefore, clearly on the respondents to explain how Suman Behera sustained those injuries which caused his death. 

Issues: –

                     Regarding the concept of sovereign immunity, if the Indian constitutional courts award monetary damages for infringement of fundamental rights when exercising their authority under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian constitution.

Contention of Appellant: –

The petitioner claimed that it was a case of custodial death in her letter dated 14.9.1988, which was considered as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

As a result of the numerous wounds, he sustained while in police custody, her son passed away. His body was then dumped on the train track.  In the petition, it was requested that she get compensation for violating her fundamental right to life, which is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Contention of Respondent: –

• Respondents’ defence was that the petitioner’s son managed to escape from police custody at around three in the morning on December 2, 1987, from the Police Outpost, where he was detained; that he was subsequently unable to be found despite a search; and that his dead body was discovered on December 2, 1987, on the railway track, with multiple injuries that suggested he had been run over by a train. The respondents rejected the accusations of custodial death and blame for the son of the petitioner’s untimely death.

• The State argued that the medical evidence established that the deceased’s injuries were caused by lathi blows, but that the nature of the injuries on the face and left temporal region could not have been caused by the lathis, and that the death had therefore occurred in the manner suggested by the police in a train accident and that it was not caused by the lathis.

Judgement: –

• On 4. 3. 1991, this Court ordered the District Judge to investigate and provide a report.   The District Judge presented the Inquiry Report dated 4.9.1991 after hearing from the parties and considering the evidence.
• The District Judge determined that the petitioner’s kid passed away as a result of several injuries sustained while he was being held by police at the Police Outpost.
• The decision of this case, therefore, made sure that the state could no longer escape liability in public law and had to be compelled to pay compensation when it committed such gross violations of one’s fundamental rights and very basic human rights.
• The liability of the State of Orissa in the present case to pay the compensation cannot be doubted and was rightly not disputed by the learned Additional Solicitor General.
• It would, however, be appropriate to spell out clearly the principle on which the liability of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between this liability and the liability in private law for payment of compensation in an action on tort.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant, the State of Orissa, must pay Mrs. Nilabati Behera a payment of Rs. 1,50,00, and it must also pay the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee a value of Rs. 10,000.

Conclusion: –

• The honourable court in this case debated whether Article 32 of the Constitution, which is without prejudice to any other action in relation to the same matter that is lawfully available, merely extends to a declaration that there has been a violation and infringement of the guaranteed fundamental rights and rests content with that by relegating the party to seek relief through civil and criminal proceedings, or can it go further and grant redress also by the only other legally available means.

• The award of damages in a proceeding under Article 32 by this court or by the High Court pursuant to Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available under public law, based on strict liability for violations of fundamental rights, to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence under private law in a tort action.

• It is an obligation of the State to ensure that no infringement of a citizen’s indefeasible right to life occurs while the citizen is in its custody, unless under the law.

written by Ajeet Kumar intern under legal vidhiya