Rudal shah vs. state of Bihar (1983)

Court  –  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Name of the Case    –    RUDUL SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation  – 1983 AIR 1086  

Date of the Case –   01 AUGUST 1983

Petitioner   – RUDUL SAH

Respondent(s)  –  STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

Bench/Judges  –  HON’BLE JUSTICE Y. V. CHANDRACHUD (CJI) HON’BLE JUSTICE A. N. SEN HON’BLE JUSTICE R. B. MISRA  

Statute reffered :

• Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
• Article 32 of the Indian constitution.

Top of Form

Introduction-

• Delivered by Chief Justice Chandrachud on August 1, 1983, this decision marked the beginning of a new era in state liability regarding the actions of its authorities. This was the first case where compensation was granted by the Supreme Court to an individual for the violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. This landmark judgment is particularly significant as it paved the way for compensating victims whose fundamental rights under the Indian constitution had been violated. It is important to highlight that the Constitution of India does not contain any explicit provisions for compensation, and the decision was formulated by the apex court of India based on its interpretation of remedial powers.

• Another remedy was introduced by the apex court to provide compensation to survivors of tortious acts committed by government authorities while performing sovereign functions. Thus, the concept of sovereign immunity is no longer available to the state when its employees commit a tort against citizens. This means that the state is vicariously liable to provide compensation for the tortious acts of its representatives.

• This significant judgment is especially remarkable because it paved the way for compensating individuals whose fundamental rights under the Indian constitution had been infringed upon. It’s crucial to stress that the Constitution of India doesn’t contain any explicit provisions for compensation, and the court’s decision was crafted by the apex court of India based on its interpretation of remedial powers.

Facts of the case-

• The case involves an individual who was imprisoned for a duration surpassing his sentence. A writ jurisdiction, based on the habeas corpus principle (meaning “to have a body”), was filed by the petitioner, Rudul Sah, seeking his release from jail.

• The habeas corpus petition was grounded on the premise that the petitioner had been detained beyond his period of imprisonment, and in June 1968, the session court declared his detention as illegal.

• Additionally, the petitioner sought redress under the constitutional remedies available to Indian citizens through Article 32, which is at the core of the Indian constitution.

• Rudul Sah, the petitioner, had been arrested for his wife’s murder. Despite being acquitted by the Sessions Court of Muzaffarpur, Bihar, on June 3, 1968, following the completion of his sentence, he was only released from prison in October 1982 after serving a 14-year term.

• In his application, the petitioner sought court intervention to address his wrongful detention and also requested state-sponsored medical treatment. Although the petition was presented to the court on November 22nd, the petitioner had already been released from jail by that time.

• However, concerning the additional remedy, the court issued a show-cause notice to the state.

• The jailor, on behalf of the state, drafted an affidavit and presented two documents. First, despite his acquittal, an order was issued by the additional session judge, mandating the petitioner’s continued detention until further notice from the Bihar state government. Secondly, at the time of the Sessions Court’s order, he was declared unfit to stand trial. In response to the medical treatment request, a civil surgeon’s examination found the petitioner to be in normal health. The medical reports were submitted to the law department in February 1977 and were issued in October 1982.

Issue:

• “Is it permissible for compensation to be granted by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in cases of fundamental rights infringement?”
• “Does Article 21 encompass the entitlement to compensation for fundamental rights violations?”

Arguments:

The Petitioner contended that

• “The petitioner’s counsel argued that he had been detained in prison even after being acquitted by the competent authority. The appellant was obligated to stay incarcerated for 14 years before eventual release.
• This case constituted a direct infringement upon the right to be safeguarded under Article 21 of the Constitution, which stipulates that every citizen possesses the fundamental rights to life and personal liberty. In addition, the petitioner requested that the government of Bihar cover the anticipated medical expenses. Furthermore, he sought compensation for his wrongful detention and an ex-gratia payment to aid in his recovery.”

The Respondent maintained the following objections that

• “On behalf of the respondent, the counsel argued that the petitioner had been incarcerated based on the orders issued by the Additional Sessions Judge. These orders specified that his release should only be authorized upon obtaining approval from the State Government and Inspector General of Prisons.
• The respondent further contended that the petitioner was initially declared mentally unstable but was later released when a civil surgeon certified him as mentally sound, as per the directive from the law department.
• It was also asserted by the respondent that Rudul Shah, the petitioner, received proper treatment in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Jail Manual of Bihar during his period of detention.”

Judgement:

• “The petition was issued by the Judge, declaring the imprisonment of Mr. Rudul Sah (the petitioner) beyond the term of his sentence as entirely illegal. Article 32 empowers the apex court to issue orders and enforce writs in cases where an individual’s fundamental rights, as mentioned in part III, are violated.

• This Court’s jurisdiction is confined to preventing unlawful detention, as per Article 21, which ensures the right to liberty.

• Compensation serves as a remedy for the wrongdoing of entities operating in the public interest and utilizing the State’s authorities to conceal it.

• Furthermore, an individual could not be detained for an extended period if they were mentally ill at the time of their release. The rationale is straightforward. Even a mentally unstable person has legal rights during their trial. The Court determined that the State’s conduct was disproportionate and lacked substantiating evidence. Consequently, the Court deemed the petitioner’s detention as unjust.

• Additionally, an individual could not be detained for a prolonged period if they were mentally ill at the time of their release. The reasoning is clear. Even a mentally unstable person has legal rights during their trial. The Court found that the State’s behavior was disproportionate and lacked supporting evidence. Therefore, the Court considered the petitioner’s detention as unreasonable.

• The Tribunal then evaluated whether it was suitable to grant the plaintiff’s request for interim relief based on their entitlement to such relief. Article 21, which guarantees personal liberty, would be meaningless if the Court were restricted to ordering the release of unlawfully detained individuals without addressing their situation.”

Conclusion:

• “It is thus evident that the decision of the apex court in this case laid the groundwork for the right to compensation in the event of fundamental rights violations.

• The ruling in the Rudal Sah case holds significance in two aspects. Firstly, it established that a violation of a constitutional right can result in civil liability enforceable in a civil court. Secondly, it outlines the foundations for a theory of liability where a breach of the right to personal liberty can result in civil liability. The decision prioritized an overriding concern to safeguard and preserve the fundamental rights of a citizen over the sovereign and non-sovereign polarity.”

Drafted by: Jhalak Varshney, Lloyd Law college, Greater Noida, an intern under legal vidhiya.