Unlawful arrest and custody can justify writ compensation where constitutional safeguards of personal liberty are breached.

Arrest and continued custody without lawful production before a Magistrate were held to violate the constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22(2), because the remand process lacked any lawful disclosure of production and was found to be surreptitious and high-handed. The court further held that, where liberty is unlawfully curtailed with mala fide or mischievous intent, writ jurisdiction can extend to exemplary monetary compensation as constitutional redress. On those findings, the petitioner was granted compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of liberty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest and continued custody of the petitioner without production before the Magistrate within the constitutional mandate were illegal and in violation of fundamental rights. (ii) Whether monetary compensation could be granted in writ jurisdiction for such unconstitutional deprivation of liberty.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest and continued custody of the petitioner without production before the Magistrate within the constitutional mandate were illegal and in violation of fundamental rights.

Analysis: The material showed that the petitioner was arrested in the early hours of 10 September 1985 and was not produced before the Executive Magistrate on 11 September or before the Sub Judge on 13 September, though remand orders were obtained. The remand applications and endorsements did not disclose any lawful production, and the conduct of the police and the remand process was found to be surreptitious and high-handed. This amounted to a gross violation of the constitutional safeguards of personal liberty and prompt production before a Magistrate.

Conclusion: The arrest and custody were illegal and violated Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether monetary compensation could be granted in writ jurisdiction for such unconstitutional deprivation of liberty.

Analysis: The Court held that mere release from custody does not wash away the wrong where liberty has been unlawfully curtailed with mala fide or mischievous intent. In an appropriate case, the writ court has jurisdiction to award monetary compensation as exemplary relief for violation of fundamental rights, following the principle that constitutional redress may include compensatory relief.

Conclusion: Monetary compensation was held payable to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, and the State was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner for the unconstitutional deprivation of liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a person is illegally arrested and detained in violation of constitutional safeguards, the writ court may award monetary compensation as an effective constitutional remedy for breach of fundamental rights.

---