Public law compensation for Article 21 violations extends to acts under colour of State duty, with State liability for Home Guards.
Public law compensation may be awarded under Article 226 for infringement of Article 21 where State action or action under colour of State duty deprives a person of life or personal liberty otherwise than according to law. The availability of civil or criminal remedies does not bar constitutional redress, and sovereign immunity does not defeat such a claim. The text also states that Home Guards, when performing duty under police control, are treated as public servants for this purpose, so their wrongful acts may be attributed to the State in public law liability. The stated effect is compensation for the injury caused, with liberty for the State to recover from the erring officials after enquiry.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can award monetary compensation for infringement of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 notwithstanding the availability of civil and criminal remedies. (ii) Whether the State is vicariously liable for the acts of Home Guards acting in the course of duty under the police force.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can award monetary compensation for infringement of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 notwithstanding the availability of civil and criminal remedies.
Analysis: The constitutional remedy for violation of fundamental rights is distinct from private law claims for damages. Public law compensation is available where State action or action of its instrumentalities results in deprivation of life or personal liberty otherwise than according to law. The availability of civil suits or criminal proceedings does not bar such constitutional redress, and the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not defeat a claim founded on contravention of Article 21. The facts admitted in the pleadings showed injury caused by persons acting under colour of State duty, with resulting loss of teeth and injury to bodily integrity.
Conclusion: The High Court can award compensation under Article 226 for established infringement of Article 21, in addition to private law and criminal remedies, and the petitioner was held entitled to such relief.
Issue (ii): Whether the State is vicariously liable for the acts of Home Guards acting in the course of duty under the police force.
Analysis: A Home Guard under the Kerala Home Guards Act, 1960 is a government-constituted volunteer body performing assigned public functions. The statutory scheme confers on a Home Guard called out for duty the same power, privilege and protection as a police officer, places the Home Guards under police control, and deems them public servants. On that basis, acts done in the course of such duty are attributable to the State for purposes of public law liability.
Conclusion: The State is vicariously liable for wrongful acts committed by Home Guards while discharging duties under the police force.
Final Conclusion: Compensation was granted for infringement of the petitioner's fundamental rights, and the State was directed to pay the amount with liberty to recover it from the erring officials after due enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: Where State instrumentalities or persons acting under statutory duty violate Article 21, the High Court may grant public law compensation under Article 226, and the State bears vicarious liability for acts of Home Guards functioning under police control.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
