TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the deceased died in police custody and whether the State was responsible for the custodial death; (ii) whether monetary compensation could be awarded in proceedings under Article 32 for violation of the right to life, and whether sovereign immunity was a defence.
Issue (i): Whether the deceased died in police custody and whether the State was responsible for the custodial death.
Analysis: The evidence showed that the deceased was taken into police custody, remained there until his body was found with multiple injuries, and the theory of escape from custody was not supported by credible material. The postmortem evidence negatived the explanation of a train accident and supported the inference that the fatal injuries were inflicted while he was in custody. The circumstances, including the absence of a convincing search, the condition of the body, and the forensic material, reinforced the finding of custodial death.
Conclusion: The death was a custodial death and the State was liable for the consequences of the unlawful deprivation of life.
Issue (ii): Whether monetary compensation could be awarded in proceedings under Article 32 for violation of the right to life, and whether sovereign immunity was a defence.
Analysis: Compensation for breach of a fundamental right was held to be a public law remedy distinct from a private law action in tort. Where the violation of Article 21 is established and compensation is the only practicable redress, the constitutional court may award monetary relief. The doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to such constitutional claims. The award of compensation was also supported by the need to evolve effective remedies to vindicate fundamental rights.
Conclusion: Monetary compensation was payable under Article 32, and sovereign immunity was no defence.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the custodial death was established, and compensation was directed to be paid to the petitioner as constitutional redress for the violation of the right to life.
Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional court may award monetary compensation as public law redress for an established violation of Article 21 when such relief is the only practicable remedy, and the defence of sovereign immunity is unavailable to the State in such proceedings.
TaxTMI 
