Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 S 1086

Citation	AIR (1983) S 1086
Date of Judgement	1 August 1983
Court	Supreme Court of India
Appellant	Rudul Sah
Respondent	State of Bihar and Anr.
Bench	Hon’ble Justice Y,V.Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Sen, Hon’ble Justice R.B Misra
Referred	Article 21 and 32 of the Constitution of India

ABSTRACT –

In accordance with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution (which allows one to approach the Supreme Court directly when one’s fundamental rights have been violated), Rudul Sah’s case was a public interest litigation (PIL) case brought before the Supreme Court. In addition to Rudul Sah’s release from unlawful confinement, additional remedy in the form of rehabilitation and compensation were also requested in the petition.

INTRODUCTION –

Legal activism plays an important role in the development of law in accordance with the development of society. One such case that shows the forward-looking approach of judges is Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar (1983). The case traces its distinction to issues of state responsibility in the light of jurisdiction and Article 21 of the Constitution. This is particularly important because it paved the way for awarding compensation for violation of fundamental constitutional rights. In this context, it is worth noting that the Constitution of India does not contain an express provision for compensation and that judgment was based on the court’s interpretation of its resources.

The right of the injured party to initiate a civil case for damages was not waived in exchange for the financial judgement. The Supreme Court compensated parties in a number of petitions as a result of this decision. In the subsequent early cases when this remedy was examined, the Court came to the conclusion that compensation would only be granted in “relevant situations,” which appeared to mostly include life and liberty rights and were typically matters comprising wrongful detention and deaths.

BACKGROUND – 

Rudul Sah was detained for the murder of his wife in 1953. He was declared guiltless on June 3, 1968, by the Additional Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur, who also organised his release from custody. He had to spend an extra 14 years in prison after being found not guilty, and on October 16, 1982, he was finally released. In 1968, the media highlighted his situation, which inspired him to file the PIL for actual injustice.

Rudul Sah was nevertheless released when PIL appeared in court. Despite this, they were instructed to issue a warning to the State of Bihar in order to explain some of the petitioner’s requests stated in the appeal.

The petitions are formatted as follows: The candidate sought out subordinate relief, including installment payments for his rehabilitation, and the solicitor recommends that the public authority provide various sorts of support. 3. Requests pay for his wrongful detention for more than 14 years.

FACTS  – 

1. The case features a man who served more time in prison than was required by law. Rudul Sah, the petitioner, presented a writ of jurisdiction based on the habeas corpus (to have a body) principle, demanding his release from custody.
2. The petition for habeas corpus was based on the claim that the petitioner had been held longer than the allotted time in custody and that the session court had ruled in June 1968 that his continued incarceration was of unlawful nature.
3. The petitioner also requested collateral relief under the constitutional remedies accessible to Indian citizens within the purview of Article 32, the foundational provision of the Indian Constitution.
4. The petitioner, Rudul Sah, was taken into custody after he killed his wife. After serving his sentence, he was declared not guilty on June 3, 1968 by the Sessions Court in Muzaffarpur, Bihar. However, he was released from jail in October 1982 following a 14-year sentence.
5. In his claim, the petitioner asked the court for compensation for his unlawful detention. In addition, he asked the state of Bihar to pay for his medical care. -funded. He was already released from jail when the petition was brought before the court on November 22nd.
6. However, the court gave the state a show-cause notice in relation to the extra remedy. 
7. The jailor produced two documents and wrote an affidavit on the state’s behalf.

Firstly,In spite of his acquittal, the extra session judge issued an order requiring the Bihar state government to keep the petitioner in custody until further notice.

Secondly, the Sessions Court had ruled that he could not be prosecuted at the time the order was issued. The petitioner was found to be normal in a medical examination after receiving medical care, according to a civil surgeon. The medical reports were provided in October 1982 after being filed to the law department in February 1977.

ISSUES – 

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation under the purview of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was one of the questions before the court?
2. Do the provisions of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution apply to the right to compensation for unlawful detention?
3. Can an Indian citizen use the defence against the state’s arbitrary actions?

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT’S SIDE – 

1. When he (Rudul Sah) was freed by the court, the petitioner’s attorney claimed that he had already been wrongly imprisoned. He was forced to wait for his release for 14 years. This was a clear violation of the candidate’s fundamental rights to life and individual freedom, as stated in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
2. The candidate asked the State of Bihar for the cost breakdown of the clinical therapy he was going to get. He also asked for compensation for his illegal detention as well as an ex-gratia payment for his rehabilitation.
3. By inviting one of its senior officers to write an affidavit in order to explain the callousness that permeates this case, the concerned Department of the Government of Bihar could have afforded to be a little more kind to this Court and to demonstrate a stronger knowledge of its obligations.
4. Instead, the Jailor has been used as a scapegoat to take responsibility for the higher-ranking officers’ negligence of duty, who should have known better.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S SIDE-

1. The respondent’s attorney argued that the petitioner was kept in custody in accordance with the Additional Sessions Judge’s request for experts, which stated that his release should only be permitted with permission from the State Government and Inspector General of Prisons.
2. The applicant was deemed to have an unstable brain, but the respondent also fought this claim, and the applicant was ultimately found to be normal in accordance with the letter from the lawyer’s office when a Civil specialist cleared him.
3. The respondent further stated that during the petitioner Rudul Shah’s custody, he received good treatment in compliance with the guidelines in the Bihar Jail Manual.

COURT – 

In terms of the State’s responsibility and the granting of compensatory relief for the breach of Fundamental Rights, the Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar case is a landmark. The legality of compensatory remedy in the event that a person’s fundamental rights are violated has been established by this case. Additionally, the judgement in Kasturilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh has been overturned by this one. The Court has highlighted that if the Government is shielded from accountability for torts committed by its representatives, it could permit them to abuse their authority to violate citizens’ Fundamental Rights.

According to the Supreme Court, when it comes to determining the safety and security of the populace, the unlawful acts of the government must fall under the ambit of constitutional jurisdiction. Therefore, in the Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar case, the government was reprimanded by the Court because it was unable to constrain its behaviour within the bounds of constitutional authority, making clear the absolute necessity of a rule to oversee and restrain the government’s acts.

In the Khatri v. State of Bihar in this case, monetary compensation was introduced into the situation for the first time through a writ petition. According to the ruling in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, all future remedy and compensation decisions must be made exclusively at the discretion of the courts. In a number of circumstances, the state may impose restrictions on citizens abusing their authority. Regulating the state’s actions is important to keep it from abusing its power in the name of the common good and to stop it from violating the citizens’ Fundamental Rights.

CONCLUSION  – 

Although there are various constitutional protections as well as legislative measures in place to protect citizens’ fundamental rights. However, the number of incidents of torture and death in custody is increasing, which has drawn the attention of the judiciary as well as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Law enforcement authorities have received a lot of complaints for misusing their position of trust and power. The victims of jail abuse are typically from the lower socioeconomic strata of society, with no access to power or resources and no protection for their human rights. On the other hand, those in positions of privilege are protected by the law. As a result, according to the ruling in the Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar case, a state’s sovereign immunity will end if its representatives harm its residents.

The State’s arbitrary and pointless acts have a significant impact on citizens’ lives in a number of ways. In order to maintain the officials’ culpability for their tortious activities and advance a welfare state, the state’s liability must be co-extensive. Regardless of their positions in the government, State officials must be held accountable for their tortuous activities in order to reduce bias and chaos in government management. From this point forward, the State and its representatives are not permitted to act arbitrarily or in a manner that directly jeopardises the citizens’ Fundamental Rights in the exercise of their authority.

REFERENCES – 

1. Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/810491/.
2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-8419-case-analysis-of-rudul-sah-vs-the-state-of-bihar-1983-.html.
3. https://lawcorner.in/rudul-sah-v-state-of-bihar-case-analysis/#:~:text=Rudul%20Sah%20v%20State%20of%20Bihar%20case%20is%20a%20landmark,of%20constitutionally%20guaranteed%20F.

Written by Shashank Sandesh Verma an intern under legal vidhiya.