Published On: 17th January, 2025
Authored By: Suruchi Sharma
Mangalayatan University Jabalpur
- Case Title- Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa
- Case No. – Writ Petition no. 488 of 1988
- Citation – AIR 1993 SC 1960
- Date of Judgment- 24th March 1993
- Court – Supreme Court , Original jurisdiction
- Bench – Justice Jagdish Saran , Justice A.S Anand , Justice N Venkatachala
- Petitioner- Nalibati Behera
- Respondent- State of Orissa
Case Background
Nilabati Behera, a distraught mother, filed to the Supreme Court of India, stating that her 22-year-old son, Suman Behera, had died as a result of custody torture committed by the Orissa police. The Supreme Court treated this letter as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which allows individuals to directly petition the Supreme Court for the enforcement of basic rights.
Facts
- Suman Behera was arrested by Orissa police on suspicion of theft and held at the Jaraikela police outpost.
- Suman Behera’s body was discovered beside a railway track the next day, with many injuries, indicating that he died violently and unexpectedly.
- The state stated that Suman Behera had escaped police custody and died in a train accident.
- Allegations of Custodial Torture However, the extent of the injuries on Suman Behera’s body cast severe doubt on the state’s assertion. The injuries were consistent with torture, suggesting that he was exposed to cruel treatment while in police custody.
Case Issues
- Power of Courts to Award Compensation:
- Whether constitutional courts can award monetary damages for infringement of basic rights.
- Whether the compensation is a remedy under public or private law.
- Violation of fundamental rights:
- Whether Suman Behera’s custodial death violated his right to life under Article 21.
- The state is responsible for protecting fundamental rights, particularly in correctional settings.
- Sovereign Immunity:
- Whether the idea of sovereign immunity could protect the state from accountability for the activities of its officers.
- The extent to which sovereign immunity can be reduced in circumstances of basic rights abuses.
- State Liability for the Acts of State Officials
- Whether the state can be held responsible for the illegal activities of its officials.
- The extent of governmental guilt in situations of custodial torture and other human rights violations.
- Remedies under Public Law:
- The nature and breadth of remedies for basic rights infringement.
- Monetary recompense serves as both a deterrent and a means of securing justice.
- Judicial activism:
- The judiciary’s responsibility in defending fundamental rights and keeping governmental officials responsible.
- The balance of judicial activism and separation of powers.
Appellant’s Contention
Nilbati Behera, Suman Behera’s mother, said police violence led to his death in custody.
- Clear Evidence of Custodial Death: She said that her son’s injuries were similar to those caused by physical violence in police custody.
- State Accountability for Fundamental Rights Violation: The appellant claimed that the state should be held accountable for violating her son’s fundamental right to life under Article 21, which resulted in his death in police custody.
- Demand for Compensation: She sought monetary compensation from the state for her son’s wrongful death.
Respondents Contention
The State of Orissa denied police involvement in Suman Behera’s injuries, citing a rail accident as the reason for his death.
- Incompatibility with Custodial Injury Patterns: They argued that the injuries seen on Suman’s head and face could not be ascribed to police lathi blows, undermining the appellant’s claims of custodial assault.
- The district judge’s findings are incorrect. The state opposed the District Judge’s judgement that Suman’s injuries were caused by police activities, arguing that it was inappropriate to ascribe the injuries to police involvement.
- Sovereign Immunity from Liability: The state impliedly sought sovereign immunity, contending that it should not be held financially accountable for the alleged activities of its officials,especially given the alternative explanation of a train accident.
Provision Involved
Article 32 of the Constitution of India
- Right to Constitutional Remedies: Article 32 guarantees the right to petition the Supreme Court for the enforcement of basic rights. This Article gives citizens a direct remedy for infringement of the rights provided by Part III of the Constitution.
- Powers to Issue Writs: Under Article 32(2), the Supreme Court may issue instructions, orders, or writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to ensure the execution of fundamental rights.
- Parliament’s Role: Article 32(3) empowers Parliament to delegate to other courts within local jurisdictions the authority to issue writs as the Supreme Court does.
- Protection Against Suspension: The right granted by Article 32 cannot be suspended except under reasons clearly stated in the Constitution, such as an emergency.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Jurisdiction of High Courts: Article 226 enables each High Court to issue instructions, orders, or writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to assure the enforcement of basic rights and for other legal purposes.
- Broad Applicability: The High Court may use this authority over authorities within its jurisdiction and, in some situations, over authorities outside its jurisdiction if a portion of the cause of action originates inside its territory.
- Interim Orders and Hearing Rights: Article 226(3) provides procedural safeguards for parties against whom interim orders (such as injunctions) are issued without an opportunity to be heard, ensuring that such orders be reviewed and resolved in a timely manner.
- Non-Derogation of Supreme Court Power: Article 226(4) states that the powers conferred to High Courts under this article do not decrease the Supreme Court’s authority under Article 32.
Provision Relevance of Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa case
Article 32 authorised the Supreme Court to address claimed violations of fundamental rights by the state, particularly the right to life under Article 21, with direct remedies.
Article 226 enhanced the High Courts’ jurisdiction to issue remedies for rights infringement, establishing a strong judicial framework for defending constitutional rights at both the state and national levels.
Both provisions were critical in establishing that the judiciary might award monetary compensation as a remedy for state-caused abuses of basic rights, therefore contesting the application of sovereign immunity in such cases.
Judgement And Impact of the Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa case
- State Responsibility for Custodial Deaths and Torture.
The Court ruled that the state may not claim immunity in situations involving violations of basic rights by its officials, notably in custody fatalities when Article 21 (right to life) was violated. This meant that the idea of sovereign immunity could not protect the state from accountability in public law for violations of fundamental human rights committed by its agents.
The decision made it apparent that when the right to life and liberty is violated, notably through custodial torture or death, the state must offer compensation to the victim’s family as a public remedy.
- Difference between Public and Private Law Liability
The Court distinguished between public and private law culpability.
- Public Law Liability: The Court noted that compensation under public law is a remedy for infringement of constitutional and fundamental rights by state actors. This perspective views compensation as a tool of enforcing and acknowledging the state’s commitment to protect fundamental rights.
- Private Law Liability: In contrast, compensation under private law is sought through tort actions and is subject to civil procedure. Compensation resolves civil wrongs between persons or parties but does not raise constitutional concerns. This distinction enabled the Court to justify compensation as a constitutional remedy, fitting with the judiciary’s broader responsibility in safeguarding basic rights.
- Compensation was awarded.
In this case, the Supreme Court ordered the State of Orissa to pay Rs. 1,50,000 to Nilabati Behera, the appellant and mother of the deceased, as compensation for her son Suman Behera’s custodial death. In addition, the Supreme Court’s Legal Aid Committee was paid Rs. 10,000.
The compensation was specifically considered as a constitutional remedy, reflecting the judiciary’s commitment to compensate victims for violations of their rights by state officials. This approach established a precedent for seeing compensation as a necessary component of justice in circumstances of fundamental rights abuses, rather than simply reparation for loss.
- The Impact and Legacy of the Judgment
- Strengthening Human Rights Protections: This decision reinforced Article 21’s right to life by holding the state liable for custodial mistreatment and torture. It was a significant step toward defending human rights in correctional settings, demonstrating the judiciary’s active role in upholding these rights.
- Encouraging Judicial Remedies for Fundamental Rights infringement: By granting compensation through public law remedies, the Court set a precedent for future cases, making monetary relief an accepted remedy for state-perpetrated rights infringement.
- Reforming the State’s Approach to Custodial Practices: The decision compelled state authorities to implement tougher accountability procedures within law enforcement agencies in order to prevent custodial abuse and preserve the fundamental rights of detainees.
Conclusion
In Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court determined that Article 32 serves not only to affirm violations of fundamental rights, but also as a potent tool for granting effective remedies, including compensation, for violations of the right to life. The Court emphasised that the state has an absolute obligation to preserve an individual’s right to life while in custody, and that any infringement of this right outside of valid grounds constitutes a serious violation of constitutional duty. In cases of custodial abuse, when the right to life under Article 21 has been infringed, the state cannot avoid responsibility simply by admitting the infringement or referring the victim to civil or criminal proceedings. Instead, the Court concluded that remedies under public law, including compensation, must be offered to redress such abuses, so upholding the citizen’s inalienable right to life and reaffirming the judiciary’s role in protecting basic rights against state abuse.