Rudul Sah V State of Bihar and Anr.

Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Coram ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
Material Facts ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Issues raised .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Judgment....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Significance of the case ................................................................................................................................. 4

1
Introduction
The question of liability to compensate for infringement of fundamental rights was first raised in
Bhagalpur Blindings case. The Supreme Court refused to order compensation in that case, until Rudul
Sah V State of Bihar in which compensation was granted to the appellant for violation of his
fundamental rights. Rudul Sah case was a Public Interest Litigation case filed in Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petition was to seek the release of Rudul Sah from illegal
detention, and also to seek compensation for the unlawful act of detention. Rudul Sah’s case opened
the gates to a new era of compensatory jurisprudence in Indian legal history.

Appellant: Rudul Sah

Respondent: State of Bihar and Anr.

Coram
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. Ranganath Misra and A.N. Sen

Material Facts
Rudul Sah was arrested in 1953 on charges of murdering his wife. He was acquitted by an
Additional Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur, on June 3, 1968, who directed his release from jail. Although
he had to spend additional 14 years in jail after acquittal and was finally released from the jail on
October 16, 1968. His plight was highlighted in the media in 1968 and led to filling of a PIL on his behalf
regarding the grave injustice.

Though, by the time the PIL came up for hearing in court, Rudul Sah had been released. Despite
that, they directed that a notice to show cause be issued to the State of Bihar regarding certain prayers
made in the petition filed by the appellant. The prayers were as follows 1. Petitioner asks for medical
treatment at Government expense, 2. Asks for an ex gratia (given as a favor) payment for his
rehabilitation, 3. Asks for compensation for his illegal detention in jail for over 14 years. The court also
said that they wanted a prompt response to the show cause notice, but they offered no explanation for
over 4 months for the same. On April 16, 1983, Shri Alakh Deo Singh, Jailor at Muzaffarpur Central Jail,
filed an affidavit in pursuance of that order. The learned judge passed the following order:

“The accused is acquitted but he should be detained in prison till further order of the State
Government and IG Bihar.”

It was claimed that Rudul Sah was of unsound mind when the order for his acquittal were
passed, though when the report was send to the Civil Surgeon, he replied stating that Rudul Sah was
mentally fit at the time of acquittal. Further, another question which arose was whether it took 14 years
to set right his mental imbalance. However, the government failed to produce any medical report in
support that any diagnosis of whether he was insane was made nor were they able to produce any
evidence to show what kind of medical treatment was prescribed and administered to him and for how
long.

2
Issues raised
 Whether habeas Corpus petition under Article 32, the Supreme Court can pass order of
compensation for infringement of fundamental rights
 Whether Article 21 covers right to compensation for violation of fundamental rights

Judgment
Court issued show cause notice to the Government asking for the explanation as to why the
petitioner was detained in jail for 14 years even after acquittal. It also directed the State to give a reason
as to why he received a much delayed response and to provide evidence for claim made by the
government that he was insane. The court further asked if indeed he was insane, to provide for a
skeletal medical record to prove that he was being treated for insanity. But, there was no evidence to
show that the accused was insane at the time of acquittal. Moreover, even if he was actually insane at
the time of acquittal, he then also cannot be kept in jail for longer duration for the simple reason that
even an insane person has certain statutory rights in regards to the procedure of how a trial takes place.
The Court viewed the States response as cold hearted and ignorant with no true basis in fact and thus
held that the petitioner’s detention was wholly unjustified.

Next, the Court examined whether, under its remedial powers it could adjudicate the
petitioner’s claims for ancillary relief. The Court reasoned that Article 21 which guarantees right to life
and personal liberty would be stripped off its significance if the Court was only limited to passing orders
releasing illegally detained individuals and not doing anything for their betterment. The Court held that

“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.”

According to the court, the compensation was in the nature of a palliative, in order to give a better
meaning to the right of life under Article 21. It also said that the right to move to the Supreme Court
under Article 32 for the enforcement of rights under Part III of the constitution is in itself a Fundamental
Right.

Therefore the final verdict by the Court was that it ordered the State to pay 30,000 rupees to
the petitioner as an interim measure, in addition to the 5,000 already paid, also noting stopping the
petitioner from bringing future lawsuits against the State and its officials for appropriate damages
relating to his unlawful detention.

3
Significance of the case
It is a landmark case in the field of state liability. It was the first time that the court had stepped in and
awarded compensation for the violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution, while there being
no express provision for awarding compensation on violation of the same.