The question arose in Sube Singh v. state of Haryana, whether compensation should be awarded under Article 32/226, for every violation of Article 21 where illegal detention or custodial violence is alleged. Whether compensation should be awarded for every violation of Article 21.
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India
In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India [1987 (1) SCC 395], a Constitution Bench of supreme Court while considering the question whether compensation can be awarded in a petition under Article 32, observed thus-
“We must, therefore, hold that Article 32 is not powerless to assist a person when he finds that his fundamental right has been violated. He can in that event seek remedial assistance under Article 32. The power of the court to grant such remedial relief may include the power to award compensation in appropriate cases.
We are deliberately using the words “in appropriate cases” because we must make it clear that it is not in every case where there is a breach of a fundamental right committed by the violator that compensation would be awarded by the court in a petition under Article 32. The infringement of the fundamental right must be gross and patent, that is, incontrovertible and ex facie glaring and either such infringement should be on a large scale affecting the fundamental rights of a large number of persons, or it should appear unjust or unduly harsh or oppressive on account of their poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position to require the person or persons affected by such infringement to initiate and pursue act in the civil courts.
Ordinarily, of course, a petition under Article 32 should not be used as a substitute for enforcement of the right to claim compensation for infringement of a fundamental right through the ordinary process of civil court. It is only in exceptional cases of the nature indicated by us above, that compensation may be awarded in a petition under Article 32. …. If we make a fact analysis of the cases where compensation has been awarded by this Court, we will find that in all the cases, the fact of infringement was patent and incontrovertible, the violation was gross and its magnitude was such as to shock the conscience of the court and it would have been gravely unjust to the person whose fundamental right was violated, to require him to go to the civil court for claiming compensation.”
Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa [1993 (2) SCC 746].
In Nilabati Behera, this Court put in a word of caution thus: –
“Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only (when) it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. …. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles apply and the courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self-restraint, lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law.”
D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 (1) SCC
In D. K. Basu, the Court repeatedly stressed that compensation can be awarded only for redressal of an established violation of Article 21. This Court also drew attention to the following aspect:
“There is one other aspect also which needs our consideration. We are conscious of the fact that the police in India have to perform a difficult and delicate task, particularly in view of the deteriorating law and order situation, communal riots, political turmoil, student unrest, terrorist activities, and among others the increasing number of underworld and armed gangs and criminals.
Many hard core criminals like extremists, the terrorists, drug peddlers, smugglers who have organized, gangs, have taken strong roots in the society. It is being said in certain quarters that with more and more liberalization and enforcement of fundamental rights, it would lead to difficulties in the detection of crimes committed by such categories of hardened criminals by soft peddling interrogation, it is felt in those quarters that if we lay too much of emphasis on protection of their fundamental rights and human rights, such criminals may go scot-free without exposing any element or iota of criminality with the result, the crime would go unpunished and in the ultimate analysis the society would suffer.
The concern is genuine and the problem is real. To deal with such a situation, a balanced approach is needed to meet the ends of justice. This is all the more so, in view of the expectation of the society that police must deal with the criminals in an efficient and effective manner and bring to book those who are involved in the crime. The cure cannot, however, be worse than the disease itself.”
Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble
In Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble [2003 (7) SCC 749] and Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. [2005 (9) SCC 631], the Court warned against non-genuine claims:
“But at the same time there seems to be a disturbing trend of increase in cases where false accusations of custodial torture are made, trying to take advantage of the serious concern shown and the stern attitude reflected by the courts while dealing with custodial violence. It needs to be carefully examined whether the allegations of custodial violence are genuine or are sham attempts to gain undeserved benefit masquerading as victims of custodial violence.”
Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana
In Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana [1995 (3) SCC 757], the Court refused compensation where the petitioner had exaggerated the incident and had indulged in falsehood.
The Court held :
“Since, from the report of the CBI and our own independent appraisal of the evidence recorded by the CBI. we have come to the conclusion that Shri Dhananjay Sharma and Sushil Kumar had been illegally detained by respondents 3 to 5 from the afternoon of 15.1.94 to 17.1.94, the State must be held responsible for the unlawful acts of its officers and it must repair the damage done to the citizens by its officers for violating their indivisible fundamental right of personal liberty without any authority of law in an absolutely high-handed manner.
We would have been, therefore, inclined to direct the State Government of Haryana to compensate Dhananjay Sharma and Sushil Kumar but since Sushil Kumar has indulged in false-hood in this Court and Shri Dhananjay Sharma, has also exaggerated the incident by stating that on 15.1.94 when he was way laid along with Sushil Kumar and Shri S.C. Puri, Advocate, two employees of respondents 6 and 7 were also present with the police party, which version has not been found to be correct by the CBI, they both have disentitled themselves from receiving any compensation, as monetary amends for the wrong done by respondents 3 to 5, in detaining them. We, therefore do not direct the payment of any compensation to them.”
Sube singh v. State of Haryana
In the case, while considering the scope of awarding compensation to the victims of police torture, the court held: –
“Cases where violation of Article 21 involving custodial death or torture is established or is incontrovertible stand on a different footing when compared to cases where such violation is doubtful or not established. Where there is no independent evidence of custodial torture and where there is neither medical evidence about any injury or disability, resulting from custodial torture, nor any mark/scar, it may not be prudent to accept claims of human right violation, by persons having criminal records in a routine manner for awarding compensation. That may open the floodgates for false claims, either to mulct money from the State or as to prevent or thwart further investigation.
Courts should, therefore, while jealously protecting the fundamental rights of those who are illegally detained or subjected to custodial violence, should also stand guard against false, motivated and frivolous claims in the interests of the society and to enable Police to discharge their duties fearlessly and effectively. While custodial torture is not infrequent, it should be borne in mind that every arrest and detention does not lead to custodial torture.”
Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006 3 SCC 178)
100% Consent of all the tenants not required for redevelopment of old and dilapidated buildings: Bom HC
The analysis of ‘Reasonable Restrictions’ under Article 19(2)
The basic concept of crime