B. A.

(hons.)LL.B(hons.)

Submitted

By

SUBMITTED TO
KISHAN SINGH

MR

NIMESH DAS GURU

CHAUHAN
B.A.LL.B. (First Term)

ASST.

PROFESSOR
Roll No.- 22
METHODS

LEGAL

Session 2011-2012
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW
RANCHI

CASE NAME :-

PETITIONER

RUDUL SAH
VS

RESPONDENT

STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

1983 AIR 1086 1983 SCR (3) 508 1983 SCC (4) 141 1983 SCALE (2)103

Court name - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGEMENT -

01/08/1983

SUBJECT

- VIOLATION OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner in the present case was the detainee who was detained in prison for 14
years, despite his acquittal by the Court of Sessions , Muzaffarpur, Bihar on June 3, 1968.

He was released from jail on October 16, 1982 (that is ) more than 14 years after his
acquittal.

The petitioner filed a writ petition of Habeas Corpus before the supreme court asking for
his release on the ground that his detention in the jail was unlawful.

The court has taken serious note of the prayers made by the plaintiff which are as follows:
By Prayer No.-2, the petitioner asks for medical treatment at Government expense.
By Prayer No.-3, the petioner asks for an ex-gratia payment for his rehabilitation.
By Prayer No.-4, the petitioner asks for compensation for his illegal detention in the jail
for over 14 years.

The petition came up before the present court on November 22, 1982, when counsel for
the defendent stated that the petitioner was already released from jail.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

Whether the plaintiffs detainment in the prison for 14 years, despite his acquittal
was justified?

Whether this court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under article 32, pass an order
for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation
consequential upon the deprivation of fundamental right?

Whether the fundamental right to life and liberty of the petitioner had been grossly
violated by the state government?

ARGUMENTS
FIRST ISSUE:
Argument on behalf of Respondents: The petitioner was in the jail from June 3, 1968 to
October 16, 1982. To justify the petitioners detainment, Shri alakh Deo singh, Jailor
,Muzaf\farpur had filed an affidavit which stated that the petitioner was recieved on 25-03-67
from Hazaribag central jail and was being produced regularly before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Muzaffarpur and on 30-06-68, the learned judge had passed an order which stated:
The accused is acquitted but he should be detained in prison till further order of the state
government and I.G.Prisons, Bihar.
It was also contended that the accused Rudul Shah was of unsound mind at the time of the
passing of the above order. This information was communicated to the Law Department in letter
No.-1838 on 10-05-74 of the Superintendent, Central Jail , Muzaffarpur through District
Magistrate. Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur, reported on 18.2.77 that accused Rudul Sah was normal
and this information was communicated to the Law Department on 21.2.77.. The petitioner
Rudul shah was treated well in accordance with the rules in the Jail Manuel, Bihar, during the
period of his detention. The petitioner was released on 16.10.82 in compliance with the letter No.
11637 dated 14.10 82 of the Law Department.

Observations of the court - The Supreme Court stated that the Jailors affidavit leaves
much to be desired. It narrated with an air of candidness what was notorious, for example, that
the petitioner was not released from the jail upon his acquittal and that he was reported to be
insane. But it did not disclose any data on the basis of which he was adjudged insane, the specific
measures that had been taken to cure him of that affliction and, most importantly, whether it took

14 years to set right his mental imbalance. In addition to these reasons, no medical opinion has
been produced in support of the diagnosis that he was insane nor indeed has any jail record been
produced to show what kind of medical treatment was prescribed for and administered to him
and for what duration. The letter (No. 1838) dated May 10, 1974 which, according to paragraph
3 of the affidavit, was sent to the Law Department by the Superintendent of the Central Jail,
Muzaffarpur, was not produced before the court. The court observed that there was nothing to
show that the petitioner was found insane on the very date of his acquittal and if he was insane
on the date of acquittal, he could not have been tried at all. According to paragraph 4 of the
affidavit, the Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur, reported on February 18, 1977 that the petitioner was
normal and that this information was communicated to the Law Department on February 21,
1977. The supreme court expressed its discontent over the fact that despite being declared normal
by the civil surgeon, the petitioner was not released thereafter for the next 5 n a half years.
The court observed that they were inclined to believe that the story of the petitioner's insanity
was an afterthought and was exaggerated out of proportion. Had he been insane, at least a
skeletal medical record could have been produced to show that he was being treated for insanity.
Hence, in these circumstances, the court was driven to the conclusion that, if at all the petitioner
was found insane at any point of time, the insanity must have supervened as a consequence of his
unlawful detention in jail. The court claimed that a sense of helplessness and frustration can
create despondency and persistent despondency can lead to a kind of mental imbalance. They
sarcastically pointed out that the concerned Department of the Government of Bihar could have
afforded to show a little more courtesy to the Court and could have displayed a greater awareness
of its responsibilities by asking one of its senior officers to file an affidavit in order to explain the
callousness pervading this case. Hence, the detainment of the petitioner was totally unjustified.
The High Court of Patna was directed to examine this matter and to call for statistical data from
the Home Department of the Government of Bihar on the question of unlawful detentions in the
State Jails and were also instructed to prepare a tabular statement from each jail for, disclosing
the number of convicts that have been in jail for more than 10 years, 12 years, 14 years and for
over 16 years.

SECOND ISSUE :

Courts Observation- contends that he is entitled to be compensated for his illegal detention
and that they ought to pass appropriate order for the payment of compensation in the Habeas
Corpus petition itself. According to the court, the petitioner could have been relegated to the
ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was factually controversial, in the sense
that a civil court may or may not have upheld his claim. The court held that if the petitioner files
a suit to recover damages for his illegal detention, a decree for damages would have to be passed
in that suit, though it was not possible to predicate, in the absence of evidence, the precise
amount which would be decreed in his favor. Hence, they believed that the refusal of this Court
to pass an order of compensation in favor of the petitioner will be doing mere lip-service to his
fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated
The court observed that Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of
fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method that is open for the judiciary to
adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities
which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the
State as a shield. The court held that for civilization not to perish as it has in some of the well
known cases, it was very necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights
of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done
by its officers to the petitioner's rights.

THIRD ISSUE
Observations of the court- The instant case depicted that the petitioner was detained
illegally in the prison for over fourteen years after his acquittal in a full-dressed trial. His
detention in the prison after his acquittal was wholly unjustified and thus it has resulted in the
violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by the constitution.
The court stated that article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of
its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders to release from
illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be
prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in
the payment of monetary compensation.

JUDGEMENT
The court, taking into consideration the great harm done to the petitioner by the Government of
Bihar, were of the opinion that, as an interim measure, the State must pay to the petitioner a
further sum of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty- thousand) in addition to the sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees
five thousand) already paid by it. The state was directed to pay the amount within two weeks
from the date of judgment. The court strictly stated that the present order to compensate the
petitioner was not based on the consent of the Bihar Government.
However, the court also held that the present order will not preclude the petitioner from bringing
a suit to recover appropriate damages from the state and its erring officials. The honorable court
has very categorically stated that the compensation granted by it are palliative and not curative,
keeping in mind the grim fact that the petitioner cannot be left impecunious during the pendency
of his suit, numerous appeals and the execution proceedings launched against the state of Bihar.
The court stated that a full-dressed debate on the nice points of fact and law which takes place
leisurely in compensation suits will have to await the filing of such a suit by the poor Rudul Sah.
The court expressed its grave concern for victims like Rudul Sah and hoped that such incidents
of fundamental right violations would not repeat and come up before the honourable court.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE CASE

ARTICLE 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution.1

HABEAS CORPUS: It signifies "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison
official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not
that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A
habeas corpus petition is a petition filed before a court by a person who objects to his own or
another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention
or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by
persons serving prison sentences. It comes under the ambit of article 32(in case of a Supreme
Court) and Article 226(in case of High Court). In family law, a parent who has been denied
1 http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/981147/

custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a
habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail
her. 2
ARTICLE 21 : Protection Of Life And Personal LibertyNo person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law. The object of the fundamental right under
Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation
of life except according to procedure established by law. It clearly means that
this fundamental right has been provided against state only. If an act of
private individual amounts to encroachment upon the personal liberty or
deprivation of life of other person. Such violation would not fall under the
parameters set for the Article 21. In such a case the remedy for aggrieved
person would be either under Article 226 and Article 32 of the constitution or
under general law. But, where an act of private individual supported by the
state infringes the personal liberty or life of another person, the act will
certainly come under the ambit of Article 21. Thus, Article 21 of the
Constitution basically deals with prevention of encroachment upon personal
liberty or deprivation of life of a person.3

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CASES

APPRECIATIVE ASPECT:
Rudul Sah case was a landmark case which provided compensation to a detainee, against the
state despite of alleged performance of a Sovereign Function by the State. In the present cases,
the Court narrowed the space between the State and citizen. By ordering the State to pay
compensation to the detent, we see the weakening of the original doctrine of sovereign immunity
and we see a changing conception of the State. By making the State pay compensation, the
2 http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
3 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/art222.htm

Supreme Court established the following principle that the State and the citizen are on the same
juristic plane. Thus the principle of compensation, which would apply to the rectification of a
private wrong like trespass or negligence, would apply to a public wrong also. Thus the Court
has recognized that the State is the manifestation of the social compulsion, which leads to the
creation of some mechanism for governance.
Payment of compensation-Further, it is to be noted that the Court has recognized that the
payment of compensation may be an effective tool for redressed. It is definitely not conflicted
that the monetary compensation would actually be the most economical way to deal with any
wrong which is perpetrated. If monetary compensation is given to any individual it serves the
dual purpose of not only compensating him for the lost hours of productivity but psychologically
gives a feeling of severance from the pain the person had to undergo. It is now taking decades for
the victims to get a decree for damages or compensation through civil courts, which is resulting
in extreme hardship for them. The emergence of compensatory jurisprudence in the light of
human rights philosophy is a positive signal indicating that the judiciary has undertaken the task
of protecting the right to life and personal liberty of all the people irrespective of the absence of
any express constitutional provision and of judicial precedents.
In the present cases by expanding the scope of the remedy of Article 32, the Court has analyzed
the societal need for justice and fairness in administration. The decision given in this case was
followed in many of the subsequent important cases like D.K.Basu vs State of West Bengal 4,
Nilabati behera vs State of Orissa5, Sebastian. M. Hongray vs Union Of India6 and many other
cases. Thus, the Supreme Court in these judgments has recognized the natural rights of the
citizens.
However, there were many issues on which the decision might have been questioned:

1997 AIR 610,(1997) 1 SCC 416

1993 AIR 1960, 1993 SCR (2) 581

1984 AIR 571, 1984 SCR (1) 904

Limit of habeas corpus- In the present case, the liability of the State was in question. Now the
writ of habeas corpus, which is a guarantee against State arbitrariness, only provides for the
freedom of the individual who has been so detained. Our Constitution itself provides for this
remedy against arbitrary arrest and detention. However, as we can see this remedy has a limit and
that limit is of producing the detent before the court, any further remedy cannot be sought by the
detent under the aegis of this writ. However, as can be seen, this writ does not satisfy the
demands for redress and compensation, which are the natural demands of any detent. Thus we
can clearly see the evolution of jurisprudential thought here.
Rejection of superiority of State- During the drafting of the Constitution, the principle of
absolute sovereign immunity was in vogue. However, to ensure a guarantee against State action,
certain remedies and rights were made available to the citizens. However, these remedies did not
lead to the equation of the State and citizen on the same plane. Rather they were only reflexive in
nature. Thus in using a remedy against a State, the remedy would only return the situation to
status quo ante, no further action was possible. Thus in the case of habeas corpus, the detent
would be returned to his original free state but no further remedy would be made possible for
him.
Amount of compensation- The judgment granted by the Supreme Court was in contravention to
the concept of Justice as enshrined under the article 142 of the constitution which states that the
Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass an order or decree as is necessary for
doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it 7. The judgment did not suggest a
criteria of providing compensation to the deceased like whether the Common Law criteria can be
adopted or some new principles or criteria should have been evolved. Ex- the Deep Pocket
Theory as discussed in Union Carbide Case where it was felt that state being the Big Brother
should have provided more compensation to the victims according to its present status. Hence,
the compensation provided in the above 2 cases was completely unreasonable and the order
passed by the court was not in nature of a palliative as it would not have relieved the petitioner of
his pain or could have alleviated his worries and mental imbalance.

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/500307/

Another critical issue was the right of civil courts to deal with the issues related to the violation
of fundamental rights. The civil courts should be provided with the authority to deal with the
fundamental right violations as the normal and the poor people cannot approach the higher
judiciary and bear the cost of filing writ petitions before the Supreme or High Courts.