Compensation through Writ Petitions: An
Analysis of Case Law
Vikram Raghavan*
In this article, the author has tried to find out the trend of the Supreme
Court in the area of Compensatory Jurisprudence. The author has
noted all the decisions in a manner which will help subsequent
researchers to get their fundamental materials.
Introduction
Social and economic justice fs the signature (une of the Indian Constitution.
It guarantees, fundamental rights which cannot be ordinarily derogated from.
In protecting these rights, the Constitution has provided for writ remedies
enforceable by the High Courts and the Supreme Court,! Often these rights are
violated by the State, though in some cases private parties may also be
involved. An important dimension of these remedies is the award of compensation
as part of the relief that can be granted to the affected person. This arises from
the fact that not only does the state have a legal duty in protecting the rights
guaranteed, but also a social duty to compensate the affected, when the state
violates these rights. Through the various decisions of the Courts in India, it
may be stated that this dream of human rights enthusiasts is now an obligation
of the state.* The rights have been interpreted to imply a contract between the
State and the citizens, a breach of which may be regressive monetarily. This
articles seeks to examine this new trend through a focus on various aspects
The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
ILis pertinent to examine in brief historically the action taken by individuals
against the state. The Indian law was in a state of confusion from its colonial
times. This was because the concept of tortious liability - as it existed in
England - was blindly followed in India.° Though liability existed in some
areas,® (he Indian courts had been so obsessed with the maxim “King can do
no wrong” that they made a distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign
functions.”
+1 Year B.A., LLB. (H), NLSIU.
1 Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India,
2 P, Leelakrishnan, “Compensation for Gov
1992).
3 P. Srikrishna Deva Rao. Custodial Deaths in India, Critical Inquiry into Law, Procedure and
practice with specific reference fo A.P.. diss.. NLSIU, Bangalore, 1993.
4 P. Srikrishna Deva Rao, “Custodial Deaths and Compensatory Jurisprudence” (1992) Ill
M.O.L. 199.
5 Leelakrishnan, see supra n. 2 at 53,
6 GP. Singh (Ed.). Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's Law of Torts, (Nagpur: Wadhwa & Co., 1992). . 40-41
7 c first case in this regantt was P.O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State, 1868 5 Box.
HGR. App. p. 1. where a distinction was made. It was followed by the decision in State of
Rajasthan v. Vidyawati. A.1.R. 1962 SC 933.. ino faras the tort was committed in the discharge
of a non sovereign function. This was follawed by Kasturi Lal's Case. see infra n. 8.
". XVIIC.U.LR. (December98 Student Advocate (Vol. 6)
The decision of the Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh.®
laid down that the exercise of a sovereign function will not give rise to a tort
action. This decision was:erroneous, and to an extent was resolved by later
decisions enumerated in this article, but has still not been completely overruled.
Most judges either conventently avoid reference to it or distinguish ils ratio.”
Dawn of the Human Rights Era
In the late 1970s, a new wave of human rights litigation flooded the
Supreme Court. Old dogmas yielded place to new concepts. This period along
with the 1980s was characterised by the presence of activist judges, ° through
whom a new human rights jurisprudence was ushered in, ranging from
development of prison to expansion of Article 21 rights.!' There was also a
marked departure from the traditional rules in conducting litigation, especially
in writ petitions.!? This era also marked the emergence of public interest
litigation, liberation of locus standi and expansion of the term “State”!?*,
Thus the stage was set for the emergence of a new jurisprudence of
compensation for the wrongs done by the state. In fact il seemed that this would
be a logical development in continuation with the earlier trend.
Rudul Shah's Case
The question of liability to compensate for infringement of fundamental
rights was first raised in the Bhagalpur Blinding’s Case.'* The Supreme Court,
refused to order compensation under its writ jurisdiction, until Rudul Shah v.
State of Bihar'* in which compensation was granted for wrongfully detaining an
innocent person, Rudul Shah's Case heralded a new era of compensatory
jurisprudence in Indian legal} history.'*
According to the court, the compensation was in the nature of a palliative,
in order to give a better meaning to the right to life under Article 21. This was
a path breaking decision imposing on the state liability to pay compensation
to victims of its lawlessness. Rudul Shah's Case was the first decision in this
respect, and some of the parameters used, such as compensation only in
exceptional cases, can be viewed critically today. But il is to be appreciated for
making a start in this direction.
8 ALR. 1965 SC 1039.
9 In Stateof Gujarat v. Menon. A.L.R. 1967 SC 1885., confronted with similar facts as the above,
the Supreme court resorted to the contract of bailment to hold the state liable.
10 P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer. Chinnappa Reddy. JJ. ete.
11 A summary of the concommitant rights are found in J.P Unnikrishnan v. State of Anethra
Pradesh. 1993 (1) J.T. 474 (577).
12 S.P, Gupta v. Union of India, A.LR. 1982 SC 149
12A Ajay Hasia v. KM. Sheravardi. (1981) ISCC 722.
13° Khatri v. State of Bihar, ALR. 1981 SC 928.
14 A.LR. 1983 SC 1086.
15 _N.R. Madhav Mcnon, “S.C.'s breakthrough Judgement,” Hindustan Times, 10 Nov. 1983,1994 Compensation through Writ Petitions 99
Bhim Singh's Case and Sebastian Hongray’s Case
After Rudul Shah's Case, came the pronouncement in Sebastian Hongray v.
Union of India,'® where the Supreme Court awarded compensation in respect
of persons missing from army custody. This was followed by the decision in
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir.'? In the opinion of the Court, it could
set right a mischief complained of by a person in respect of arrest and violation
of his rights by the award of compensation. The court deviated from the rule
of Habeas Corpus being remedial and made it punitive.'® One finds in Bhim
Singh's Case, a collection of rules and reasoning which evolved both in Rudul
Shah's Caseand Sebastian Hongray’s Case- a mixture of palliative compensation
and exemplary costs.
Widening of Writ Jurisdiction in M.C. Mehta’s Case
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,'° in anticipation of the impending litigation
inconnection with the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, It was laid down that a hypertechnical
approach cannot be adopted to meet the ends of justice.?° This, it is submitted
was more of use to the Courts later, in the award of compensation through
writs, than in the Bhopal litigation.
Fundamental Rights v. Sovereign Immunity
Relying on the triology of cases of Rudul Shah, Hongray, and Bhim Singh, the
Andhra Pradesh High Court”! has categorically stated that Kasturi Lal's Case
has no application where there is a deprivation of life or personal liberty. This
ase seems to open a new vista for individual action against the state as Article
300 has been held not to be an exception to Article 2 1,22 The High Court has
in a note worthy judgement, effectively distinguished a Supreme Court
Judgement instead of blindly adhering to it.
After having noted the background of the new judicial activism, in award of
compensation, it would be pertinent to visit a few areas in which this
jurisdiction has been exercised.
Custodial Death
‘This seems to be one of the areas of high judicial activism, with respect to
the grant of compensation, The Supreme Court has taken a clear stand of
16 A.LR. 1984 SC 571, The Court granted exemplary costs of Rs. | lakh to the widows.
17 ALR. 1986 SC 494... The Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to a legislator who was.
prevented from attending the session of the Assembly.
18 KC. Joshi, "Compensation through Writs” 30 J.1.LL. 69.
19 A.LR. 1987 SC 1086.
20 It had earlier similarly been held in Baneihua Mukti Morcha v, Union of India, A.1-R, 1984 SC
802. that Article 32 is very broad,
21 Ramakomnda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AR. 1989 A.P. 235,
22 Acase of a bomb attack on undertrials In a prison due to the negligence of officials. It was,
held that the State was liable to the extent of Rs. 1.44,000.100 ‘Student Advocate (ol. 6)
awarding compensation where the detention resulted in the person's death,
which has been described as a barometer in the award of compensation. 25 This.
il is submitted, may not be the correct test and will lead to considerable
arbitrariness in its application.
Among the High Courts it is only the Guwahati High Court? from which a
number of cases have been reported, but this does not mean that there are no
custodial deaths elsewhere. An inference can (hus be drawn thal in a majority
of the High Courts, this remedy has not been utilised. Another drawback is the
tremendous delay, as was in the famous Rajan Case.25The irend also seems to
be to award compensation to only the wives, and not the other dependents.2*
Atrocities and Illtreatment by Authorities
Not only life, but liberty with dignity, when violated must be compensated
Thus the evolution of the new dignity of life and liberty, laid down in Menaka
Gandhi v. Union of india,?’found its logical end in compensating for violation of
il, Handcuffing has been held to mandate compensation, as a consequence.?*
In keeping with the dignity of human beings, third degree methods of interogation
have been condemned and compensation has been awarded.?9It is submitted
that this particular remedy , will be of tremendous litigative value in the future.
Atrocities against Women
The courts are especially alive to atrocities perpetuated against women,
which is a welcome step. In fact it may be stated, that these trends can be
regarded separate from the rest. for not only are the fundamental rights
involved but also the directive principles as well as the fundamental duties. The
compensation paid will help.them start a fresh life, as_in the case of Saheli v,
Commisioner.* The courts must also use this sphere to innovate in order to
ensure that the real benefit of the compensation goes to the woman concerned,
as was done in Padmini v. State of Tamil Nadu.?! The government was directed
to pay compensation into a fixed deposit scheme for the benefit of a victim of
molestation. This special type of atrocity has also caused the courts to ponder
as to what should be the type of relief involved. The Guwahati High Court®?
23° PLUD.R. v. Dethi Administration. Unreported, cited in Rao supra note Lal p. 171, Vipen v.
Union of India, WP Cri. No. 239. 1989 (SC). dated 29.10.1991, Sce also, A Rajasthan Case
reported by M.J. Anthony “Legal Notes", Indian Express. 11 May 1987.
24 PJ. Gogotv. State of Assam. 1992 Cri Lu. 154., Army Custodial death, award of Rs. 2 lakh
ordered, G.C. Jena v, D.G.P., 1992 Cri.LJ. 2901., Police Custodial death, Rs. 80,000
awarded.
25 Ecchera Warrier v. State of Kerala. See Rao, supra n. 3 at 118.
26 Laslithy. D.G.P.. 1989 Cri. Lal. 1732. Lithuiklav. Risheang, A.L.R. 1989 (N.O.C, 182,. See also
Veen Bala v. Dethi Administration, 1993 (2) SCALE 179.
27 ALR. 1978 ASC 597.
28 State ef Maharashtra v. Patil, (1991) 2 SCC 373.
29 Lakshmi v. Sub Inspector, 1991 Cri. Lud. 2269.
80 ALR, 1990 SC 513
81 1993 Cri. LJ. 2964.
32 InRe A Police Gang Rape, 1988 (2) MWN (Cri). 141994 Compensation through Writ Petitions 101
in trying not to be patronising, said it would award ex gratia payment rather
than compensation . This distinction, it is submitted, is not warranted.
Illegal Detention
In exercising the writ of Habeas Corpus, along with ordering the release
from detention, the courts have attempted to provide the writ with a new
dimension. This consists of making the person responsible, compensate in
cases of illegal detention. This, it is submitted, has infused new life in to the
meaning of personal liberty. Instead of merely making the state pay®® this must
be an area where there must be enhanced accountability of officers involved.
In the North Eastern States, the problem of illegal detention by the army, in the
exercise of their power under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1954, can
be effectively curbed by making release effective through compensation.” In
the ultimate analysis, this is the most important area to enforce personal
liability of the officers involved:
Negligence of Police in dealing with injured
In this area, interestingly enough, the courts’ attention have been drawn by
events that attract considerable media attention, such as the shabby treatment
to those injured in the police firing in the Mandal agitation, covered by the video
magazine Newstrack.”° The police are also accountable if care or medical
attention has not been accorded.‘ This area it is submitted, has shown the way
for the courts to rely on the evidence of the media, especially in respect of
incidents concerning police crimes, wherein adequate evidence or witnesses
may otherwise be lacking-
Encounter deaths and Police Firing
‘The important aspect of this area in awarding compensation, is the fact that
the highest court of the land has recognised that (he vehemently denied.
encounter deaths do take place.®* This, it is submitted, constitutes a
recognition of the reality, but this is only the tip of the ice berg, Details of these
incidents are shrouded in secrecy and the award of compensation should be
accompanied by directions to produce all relevant material that exists on these
outrages. In P.U.D.R. v. State of Bihar,” a quest was made for a formula to
award compensation in respect of police firing. This, it is submitted, deserves
immediate judicial attention.
33 _B.Singh v. Union of India, 1993 Cri. Lu. 3454; Venkiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 Cri,
Lal. 691.
34 Civil Liberties v. Kukerty, 1988 (2) GLR 37: Barua v. Union of India, 1901 Cri, Lal. 265; Hora,
v. State of Assam, 1991 Cri. Lal. 2782.
85 Susheeta v. State of Karnataka, 1991 Cri, Lal. 2675,
36 P.V. Kapoor v. Union of India, 1992 Cri, Lal. 128.
37 S.C.LA.C. v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 482,
38 RS. Sodhtv. State of Uttar Pradesh. 1991 (2} SCAL
39 ALR. 1987 SC 355.102 ‘Student Advocate (vol. 6)
Communal Riots
In two landmark decisions, the Madras" and Jammu& Kashmirt! High
Courts have, for the first time awarded compensation, for communal riots. In
the view of the High Courts, since people were denied of their livelihood, the
state must pay for inaction in protecting the properties of the people affected.
This was unprecedented, and can give rise to various other complications like
fixing of liability, amount of compensation to be awarded etc. Another aspect.
to be considered, is that as these type of incidents are on the increase, the
Courts will be flooded with litigation, and the monetary capacity of the state
exchequer will be severely burdened. Recently the Rajasthan High Court has
turned down such a petition.
Negligence and other Miscellancous Petitions
An important development that has taken place upon, the widening of writ
jurisdiction, is that High courts have awarded compensation in a number of
miscellaneous cases, liké negligence of staff in a government hospital,*?
awarding freedom fighter's wives pension,“ compensating wrongful seizure,”
wrongful trespass by police in a religious place,*® injuries from working for the
police.*”. This wholesale enlargement of writ jurisdiction must however be
viewed with appropriate caution, and proper application of mind as to whether
the circumstances warrant it. Otherwise the writ courts will be inundated with
frivolous pleas.
Common Law Remedy to Compensation through Writs
In a recent landmark Judgement, the Supreme Court® in awarding
compensation in relation to acustodial death, has held that the claim in public
law for enforcement of fundamental rights is distinct from the claim in private
law for tort damages. The case has in effect, created a new remedy for violation
of fundamental rights which is part of the constitutional common iaw: that is,
the contribution of decisions of courts of law in developing constitutional law.
Whether this right will become a fundamental right, remains to be seen.
Compensation: Palliatives or Damages? How to measure?
The question as to what can be the nature of monetary relief that a
petitioner is entitled to is of crucial relevance. A perusal of the cases shows that
in all of them compensation was given as a palliative measure, or as exemplary
40 R. Gandhi v. Union of India ALR. 1989 Mad, 205.
41 Inder Puri General Stores v. State of U&K, A.1.R, 1992 J&K 11.
42 Nathulal: v. State of Rajasthan. A.LR. 1993 Raj. 149.
43 Kalavati v.State of Himachal Pradesh, A.LR. 1989 11.P. 5.
44 Ram Pyari v. Union of India, A.LLR 1988 Raj. 124,
45° M.P. Lid. v. Collector, Thyruvannamatat, A.I.R 1990 Mad. 181.
47 P.U.D.R, v. Commissioner, (1989) 4 SCC 730.
48 Nilabatt Bera v. State of Orissa, ALR 1993 §
1960,1994 Compensation through Writ Petitions 103
costs.49 In fact, in many decisions, the judgements concluded with the
observation that the award of money in the writ would not prejudice a claim to
damages in a civil court. There is a view that the palliative compensation has
been done away with, with the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhim Singh’s
Case However, it is submitted that the mentioning of the remedy available
with the civil court has been done with two reasons - the first is to ensure that
the writ courts do not become submerged with litigation, and secondly to do
away with the cumbersome process of appreciation of evidence and to calculate
the damages payable.
The courts in earlier cases used * shocking of conscience” as an indicator
to warrant compensation. This rather arbitrary concept appears to have been
done away with in Behra’s Case, as when a new remedy is created it is implied
that it must be accessible to all.
The rationale employed in the award of compensation also appears to be
rather unsettled. The lack of guidelines, rules or legislation for the award of
compensation, left the matter to the varying discretion of the individual judges.
In most cases, courts awarded compensation without any basis or principles
for quantifying the amount." An attempt has been made in the decision
rendered in Kalavathi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, where reliance is placed
on the format of the Motor Vehicle Act for guidance. A similar attempt has been
made in Behra’s Case.
Towards Personal Liability
There are several fallouts of compensation through the Constitution
Increasing use of the compensation remedy may give the impression that the
State is ready to compensate, if it can purchase the right to continue to inflict
constitutional deprivations on ils citizens.®* Afier the judgement in Rudul
Shah's Case, fears were expressed that the socio economic conditions were not
ripe, as it would have serious repercussions on the exchequer.”
In answering the above question, it is important to protect the personal
liability aspect. It is fair enough to make the delinquent officer personally
responsible for the violation of the right concerned.°* A start has been made,
but the State still bears the brunt of the burden, This is probably a concept
which the courts in the future must give adequate attention
49 Leelakrishnan, see supra note 2 at 56.
50 Joshi, see supra note 16.
51 _ S.N, Jain “Monctary Compensation for Adininistrative Wrongs through Article 82,” 25 J.L.Lal
118 (121).
52 ALR. 1989 1L.P. Note lat 121
54 PAK. Tripathi. “Article 32 and Compensation Conundrum” (1984) 11 SCC 51.
55 R. Ramachandran, “Constitutional Tort," Lawyer's Collective, (April 1988) at 16.104 Student Advocate (Vol. 6)
Conclusion
The jurisprudence of compensation is relatively young, bul has made
significant headway since the Rudul Shai’ Case. The new remedy has proved
a god send to many, and has provided a substantial shot in the arm in the role
of the Courts as protectors of human rights. The failings of the common law of
torts are now redressed to a good extent. The judicial initiative is a welcome
step, but it is only a guiding star in the long struggle of Rudul Shatt's and
Sahelis who grope under the reign of terror of a politicised bureaucracy or
bureaucratised politicians and other leviathans collectively manifested in the
monster known as the State, The trend is thus clearly a step in the right
discretion, But it must also be noted that il has been observed in only a small
minority of cases. The judiciary must use the provision of compensation to
grant relief in appropriate cases. The lawyers engaged in such matter may also.
contribute by including in their pleadings, a prayer for compensation. To sum
up, this area, promises to be an interesting one for future research,