Abstract:‌ 

‌
Custodial‌‌deaths:‌‌a‌‌Fait‌‌Accompli‌‌or‌‌Gross‌‌injustice.‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
The‌‌essay‌‌seeks‌‌to‌‌understand‌‌the‌‌various‌‌nuances‌‌associated‌‌with‌‌custodial‌‌violence‌‌  
of‌‌the‌‌arrested‌‌individuals‌‌unlawfully‌‌detained‌‌or‌‌arrested.‌‌The‌‌paper‌‌provides‌‌both‌‌the‌‌  
legislation‌‌and‌‌precedence‌‌in‌‌relation‌‌to‌‌the‌‌rights,‌‌powers,‌‌and‌‌duties‌‌of‌‌the‌‌police‌‌  
officers‌‌in‌‌the‌‌discharge‌‌of‌‌their‌‌duties,‌‌more‌‌so‌‌related‌‌to‌‌the‌‌due‌‌care‌‌and‌‌diligence‌‌  
required‌‌by‌‌the‌‌police‌‌officers‌‌in‌‌the‌‌exercise‌‌of‌‌their‌‌duties.‌‌The‌‌paper‌‌also‌‌conducts‌‌a ‌‌
comparative‌‌law‌‌analysis‌‌between‌‌the‌‌legal‌‌systems‌‌of‌‌the‌‌United‌‌States‌‌of‌‌America‌‌  
and‌‌India‌‌looking‌‌at‌‌the‌‌jurisprudential‌‌aspects‌‌related‌‌to‌‌the‌‌unlawful‌‌arrest‌‌of‌‌  
detainees,‌‌the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌seek‌‌remedy‌‌as‌‌to‌‌a‌‌means‌‌of‌‌deterrence,‌‌and‌‌the‌‌various‌‌  
mechanisms‌‌that‌‌are‌‌required‌‌to‌‌combat‌‌the‌‌problem‌‌of‌‌Custodial‌‌Violence.‌‌‌The‌‌  
landmark‌‌judgments‌‌of‌‌Nilabati‌‌Behera‌‌vs‌‌the‌‌State‌‌of‌‌Orissa,‌‌Rudul‌‌Sah‌‌vs‌‌State‌‌of‌‌Bihar,‌‌D.K‌‌ 
Basu‌‌vs‌‌State‌‌of‌‌West‌‌Bengal‌‌are‌‌also‌‌assessed‌‌on‌‌their‌‌merits‌‌and‌‌demerits‌‌as‌‌well‌‌as‌‌several‌‌  
Landmark‌‌U.S‌‌Judgements‌‌such‌‌as‌‌the‌‌Miranda‌‌case‌‌and‌‌the‌‌Rodney‌‌King‌‌case.‌‌The‌‌ICCPR‌‌  
which‌‌India‌‌acceded‌‌to,‌‌is‌‌also‌‌utilized‌‌in‌‌understanding‌‌the‌‌various‌‌modulations‌‌that‌‌occur‌‌  
   ‌
when‌‌it‌‌comes‌‌to‌‌conservation‌‌of‌‌the‌‌rights‌‌in‌‌the‌‌detention‌‌or‌‌arrest‌‌of‌‌any‌‌individual.‌‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
  ‌
Police‌‌Excess:‌‌A‌‌Fait‌‌Accompli‌‌or‌‌Gross‌‌Injustice‌  ‌
 ‌
Introduction‌  ‌
 ‌
On‌‌June‌‌18,‌‌1980,‌‌a‌‌6-months-pregnant‌‌woman‌‌was‌‌traveling‌‌from‌‌New‌‌Delhi‌‌to‌‌UP‌‌with‌‌her‌‌
 
husband‌‌and‌‌friends‌‌in‌‌a‌‌taxi.‌‌Forty‌‌kilometers‌‌into‌‌their‌‌journey,‌‌they‌‌had‌‌a‌‌flat‌‌tire‌‌and‌‌had‌‌ 
stopped‌‌in‌‌Baghpat‌‌district.‌‌Ishwar‌‌(husband)‌‌was‌‌making‌‌arrangements‌‌to‌‌fix‌‌the‌‌tire‌‌when‌‌two‌‌
 
plain-clothed‌‌officers‌‌from‌‌the‌‌Baghpat‌‌police‌‌station‌‌started‌‌sexually‌‌harassing‌‌the‌‌woman.‌‌
 
Ishwar‌‌and‌‌his‌‌friends‌‌intervened‌‌and‌‌a‌‌scuffle‌‌broke‌‌out.‌‌The‌‌plain-clothed‌‌officers‌‌ran‌‌to‌‌the‌‌
 
police‌‌station‌‌shouting‌‌“Dacoits!‌‌Dacoits!”.‌‌This‌‌prompted‌‌10‌‌police‌‌officers‌‌from‌‌that‌‌station‌‌to‌‌ 
come‌‌with‌‌their‌‌rifles‌‌and‌‌ruthlessly‌‌shoot‌‌Ishwar‌‌and‌‌his‌‌friends‌‌dead.‌‌They‌‌then‌‌hauled‌‌the‌‌ 
pregnant‌‌woman‌‌out‌‌of‌‌the‌‌car,‌‌stripped‌‌her‌‌naked,‌‌and‌‌dragged‌‌her‌‌75‌‌meters‌‌to‌‌the‌‌police‌‌
 
station,‌‌where‌‌for‌‌the‌‌next‌‌two‌‌days‌‌they‌‌brutally‌‌assaulted‌‌her.‌1‌‌ ‌This‌‌is‌‌the‌‌story‌‌of‌‌Maya‌‌Tyagi.‌‌ 
This‌‌story‌‌is‌‌unfortunately‌‌not‌‌a‌‌unique‌‌one.‌‌Police‌‌excess‌‌whether‌‌it’s‌‌in‌‌relation‌‌to‌‌custodial‌‌ 
deaths‌‌or‌‌harassment‌‌or‌‌intimidation‌‌of‌‌victims/witnesses‌‌is‌‌a‌‌phenomenon‌‌that‌‌is‌‌not‌‌just‌‌ 
pervasive‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Indian‌‌ethos‌‌but‌‌reverberates‌‌across‌‌the‌‌socio-political‌‌spectrum‌‌of‌‌Indian‌‌ 
affairs.‌‌   ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Constitution‌‌of‌‌India‌‌under‌‌Articles‌‌20,‌‌21‌‌and‌‌22‌‌provides‌‌for‌‌the‌‌rights‌‌available‌‌to‌‌
 
detainees‌‌in‌‌the‌‌custody‌‌of‌‌the‌‌police‌‌and‌‌imposes‌‌a‌‌duty‌‌upon‌‌the‌‌police‌‌to‌‌undertake‌‌due‌‌
 
diligence‌‌in‌‌the‌‌exercise‌‌of‌‌their‌‌statutory‌‌power.‌‌However,‌‌both‌‌the‌‌legislative‌‌and‌‌precedence‌‌ 
authority‌‌of‌‌law‌‌has‌‌not‌‌emanated‌‌through‌‌the‌‌ranks‌‌of‌‌the‌‌policing‌‌system‌‌in‌‌India.‌‌Custodial‌‌ 
deaths‌‌and‌‌other‌‌sorts‌‌of‌‌inhumane‌‌treatment‌‌are‌‌still‌‌meted‌‌out‌‌by‌‌the‌‌police‌‌on‌‌a‌‌daily‌‌basis..‌‌ 
The‌‌unbridled‌‌powers‌‌enjoyed‌‌by‌‌police‌‌is‌‌the‌‌main‌‌cause‌‌for‌‌concern‌‌which‌‌not‌‌only‌‌creates‌‌a ‌‌
terrible‌‌fear‌‌in‌‌the‌‌minds‌‌of‌‌the‌‌public‌‌but‌‌also‌‌alienates‌‌the‌‌public‌‌from‌‌the‌‌police.‌2‌‌ ‌This‌‌would‌‌ 
inevitably‌‌lead‌‌the‌‌general‌‌public‌‌to‌‌have‌‌contempt‌‌for‌‌the‌‌Law,‌‌possibly‌‌leading‌‌to‌‌anarchy‌‌and‌‌ 

1
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/economy/story/19951231-policemen-are-my-enemy.-my-blood-still-b‌
oils-when-i-see-one.-754568-1995-12-31‌‌    ‌
 ‌
2
T
‌ his‌‌extract‌‌is‌‌taken‌‌from‌B
‌ ook‌‌Review:‌‌Torture‌‌and‌‌Rape‌‌in‌‌Police‌‌Custody‌‌(An‌‌Analysis)‌, ‌‌
6‌‌Stud‌‌Adv‌‌(1994)‌‌161‌‌at‌‌page‌‌162‌  ‌
public‌‌disorder.‌  ‌
 ‌
It’s‌‌undisputed‌‌that‌‌the‌‌powers‌‌assigned‌‌to‌‌the‌‌police‌‌in‌‌the‌‌engagement‌‌of‌‌their‌‌statutory‌‌duties‌‌ 
must‌‌be‌‌balanced‌‌with‌‌checks‌‌and‌‌balances‌‌more‌‌so‌‌from‌‌the‌‌public‌‌accountability‌‌standpoint,‌‌
 
but‌‌is‌‌the‌‌current‌‌setup‌‌of‌‌counterbalance‌‌as‌‌effective‌‌in‌‌combating‌‌custodial‌‌violence?‌  ‌
 
In‌‌general,‌‌the‌‌methods‌‌of‌‌accountability‌‌of‌‌policing‌‌in‌‌India‌‌can‌‌be‌‌through‌‌an‌‌Internal‌‌
 
assessment‌‌of‌‌the‌‌circumstance‌‌vis‌‌a‌‌vis‌‌through‌‌Section‌‌7‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Indian‌‌Police‌‌Act,‌‌1861‌3‌.‌‌The‌‌ 
act‌‌clarifies‌‌on‌‌the‌A
‌ ppointment,‌‌dismissal,‌‌etc.,‌‌of‌‌inferior‌‌officers‌‌which‌‌could‌‌include‌‌
 
dismissal,‌‌suspension‌‌or‌‌reduction‌‌of‌‌any‌‌police-officer‌‌of‌‌the‌‌subordinate‌‌ranks‌‌when‌‌they‌‌are‌‌
 
negligent‌‌in‌‌the‌‌discharge‌‌of‌‌their‌‌duty,‌‌or‌‌unfit‌‌for‌‌the‌‌same‌‌which‌‌is‌‌to‌‌be‌‌read‌‌with‌‌Section‌‌23‌‌ 
and‌‌Section‌‌29‌‌of‌‌the‌‌aforementioned‌‌act.‌‌Section‌‌23‌‌of‌‌the‌‌IPA,‌‌1961‌‌states‌‌that‌‌the‌‌
 
apprehension‌‌of‌‌all‌‌persons‌‌whom‌‌the‌‌police‌‌officer‌‌is‌‌legally‌‌authorized‌‌to‌‌apprehend,‌‌must‌‌
 
have‌‌sufficient‌‌grounds‌‌to‌‌apprehend‌‌the‌‌person‌4‌.‌‌Section‌‌29‌‌deals‌‌with‌‌the‌‌Penalties‌‌for‌‌neglect‌‌ 
of‌‌duty,‌‌etc.‌‌wherein‌‌a‌‌police-officer‌‌who‌‌shall‌‌be‌‌guilty‌‌of‌‌any‌‌violation‌‌of‌‌duty‌‌or‌‌wilful‌‌breach‌‌
 
or‌‌neglect‌‌of‌‌any‌‌rule‌‌or‌‌regulation‌‌or‌‌lawful‌‌order‌‌made‌‌by‌‌competent‌‌authority‌‌shall‌‌be‌‌liable,‌‌ 
on‌‌conviction‌‌before‌‌a‌‌Magistrate,‌‌to‌‌a‌‌penalty‌‌not‌‌exceeding‌‌three‌‌months‌‌pay,‌‌or‌‌to‌‌
 
imprisonment‌‌with‌‌or‌‌without‌‌hard‌‌labour,‌‌for‌‌a‌‌period‌‌not‌‌exceeding‌‌three‌‌months,‌‌or‌‌to‌‌both.‌5‌  ‌
 
Therefore‌‌it‌‌is‌‌made‌‌pertinently‌‌clear‌‌through‌‌various‌‌legislative‌‌documents‌‌that‌‌the‌‌police‌‌must‌‌
 
exercise‌‌caution‌‌in‌‌the‌‌exercise‌‌of‌‌their‌‌duties,‌‌and‌‌that‌‌in‌‌the‌‌event‌‌of‌‌any‌‌misconduct‌‌or‌‌
 
negligence,‌‌the‌‌officers‌‌involved‌‌must‌‌be‌‌held‌‌responsible‌‌for‌‌their‌‌actions‌‌and‌‌there‌‌must‌‌be‌‌ 
punitive‌‌actions‌‌taken‌‌against‌‌them.‌  ‌
 
But‌‌what‌‌exists‌‌in‌‌theory‌‌is‌‌a‌‌far‌‌cry‌‌from‌‌the‌‌practical‌‌realities‌‌of‌‌what‌‌tends‌‌to‌‌occur‌‌in‌‌the‌‌ 
event‌‌of‌‌a‌‌gross‌‌injustice‌‌committed‌‌by‌‌the‌‌policing‌‌mechanism‌‌of‌‌a‌‌state.‌‌In‌‌most‌‌
 
3
 ‌
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00038_186105_1523266889428&sectionI‌
d=46937&sectionno=7&orderno=7‌‌    ‌
4
 ‌
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00038_186105_1523266889428&sectionI‌
d=46954&sectionno=23&orderno=24‌‌    ‌
5
 ‌
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00038_186105_1523266889428&sectionI‌
d=46960&sectionno=29&orderno=30‌‌    ‌
circumstances,‌‌from‌‌an‌‌internal‌‌accountability‌‌standpoint,‌‌the‌‌majority‌‌of‌‌the‌‌officers‌‌get‌‌a‌‌slap‌‌
 
on‌‌the‌‌wrist‌‌and‌‌inevitably‌‌return‌‌to‌‌service‌‌after‌‌a‌‌brief‌‌period‌‌of‌‌their‌‌suspension.‌‌This‌‌practice‌‌ 
would‌‌as‌‌a‌‌matter‌‌of‌‌course‌‌embolden‌‌the‌‌police‌‌to‌‌further‌‌engage‌‌in‌‌such‌‌actions‌‌and‌‌would‌‌
 
defeat‌‌the‌‌purpose‌‌of‌‌public‌‌accountability.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
Comparative‌‌analysis‌ 
 
The‌‌United‌‌States‌‌of‌‌America‌‌has‌‌become‌‌infamous‌‌for‌‌its‌‌policing‌‌system‌‌especially‌‌after‌‌the‌‌ 
recent‌‌deaths‌‌of‌‌George‌‌Floyd‌‌and‌‌Breonna‌‌Taylor.‌‌However,‌‌the‌‌recourse‌‌it‌‌offers‌‌to‌‌victims‌‌of‌‌
 
state‌‌misconduct‌‌both‌‌from‌‌a‌‌legislative‌‌and‌‌precedence‌‌standpoint‌‌is‌‌more‌‌advanced‌‌in‌‌
 
comparison‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Indian‌‌Legal‌‌System.‌‌The‌‌Bill‌‌of‌‌Rights‌6‌‌ ‌which‌‌comprises‌‌of‌‌the‌‌first‌‌10‌‌
 
amendments‌‌to‌‌the‌‌U.S‌‌Constitution‌‌encapsulates‌‌several‌‌civil‌‌rights‌‌and‌‌liberties‌‌that‌‌are‌‌
 
enjoyed‌‌by‌‌U.S‌‌Citizens‌‌notwithstanding‌‌the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌a‌‌fair‌‌and‌‌speedy‌‌trial‌7‌,‌‌the‌‌barring‌‌of‌‌any‌‌ 
sort‌‌of‌‌cruel‌‌and‌‌unusual‌‌punishment‌8‌‌ ‌and‌‌the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌be‌‌informed‌‌of‌‌the‌‌criminal‌‌charges‌‌held‌ 
against‌‌them.‌‌This‌‌is‌‌further‌‌propounded‌‌by‌‌several‌‌landmark‌‌judgements‌‌such‌‌as‌‌the‌M
‌ iranda‌‌v.‌‌
 
Arizona‌‌(1966),‌‌where‌‌the‌‌Supreme‌‌Court‌‌ruled‌‌that‌‌detained‌‌criminal‌‌suspects,‌‌prior‌‌to‌‌police‌‌ 
questioning,‌‌must‌‌be‌‌informed‌‌of‌‌their‌‌constitutional‌‌right‌‌to‌‌an‌‌attorney‌‌and‌‌against‌‌
 
self-incrimination‌9‌.‌‌This‌‌acts‌‌as‌‌an‌‌effective‌‌method‌‌of‌‌combating‌‌police‌‌excess‌‌and‌‌keeps‌‌them‌‌ 
in‌‌line‌‌with‌‌their‌‌statutory‌‌duties.‌‌In‌‌situations‌‌where‌‌there‌‌is‌‌police‌‌excess,‌‌the‌‌victims‌‌of‌‌police‌‌ 
brutality‌‌can‌‌exercise‌‌their‌‌civil‌‌remedy‌‌for‌‌compensation‌‌through‌‌42‌‌U.S.‌‌Code,‌‌section‌‌1983,‌‌ 
the‌‌relevant‌‌federal‌‌civil‌‌statute‌‌through‌‌which‌‌individuals‌‌may‌‌file‌‌lawsuits‌‌against‌‌the‌‌ 
offending‌‌officer,‌‌department‌‌or‌‌jurisdiction.‌10‌  ‌
 ‌
It‌‌states:‌  ‌
“Any‌‌person‌‌who,‌‌under‌‌color‌‌of‌‌any‌‌statute,‌‌ordinance,‌‌regulation,‌‌custom,‌‌or‌‌usage,‌‌of‌‌any‌‌
 
State‌‌or‌‌Territory‌‌or‌‌the‌‌District‌‌of‌‌Columbia,‌‌subjects‌‌or‌‌causes‌‌to‌‌be‌‌subjected,‌‌any‌‌citizen‌‌of‌‌ 
the‌‌United‌‌States‌‌or‌‌other‌‌person‌‌within‌‌the‌‌jurisdiction‌‌thereof‌‌to‌‌the‌‌deprivation‌‌of‌‌any‌‌rights,‌‌
 

6
h
‌ ttps://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say‌‌
   ‌
7
‌6th‌‌Amendment‌‌of‌‌US‌‌Constitution‌  ‌
8
‌8th‌‌Amendment‌‌of‌‌US‌‌Constitution‌  ‌
9
h ‌ ttps://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html‌‌   ‌
10
h
‌ ttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983‌   ‌
privileges,‌‌or‌‌immunities‌‌security‌‌by‌‌the‌‌Constitution‌‌and‌‌laws,‌‌shall‌‌be‌‌liable‌‌to‌‌the‌‌party‌‌ 
injured‌‌in‌‌an‌‌action‌‌at‌‌law,‌‌suit‌‌in‌‌equity,‌‌or‌‌other‌‌proper‌‌proceeding‌‌for‌‌redressal.”‌  ‌

Section‌‌1983‌‌actions‌‌are‌‌intended‌‌to‌‌fulfill‌‌at‌‌least‌‌two‌‌basic‌‌purposes‌‌in‌‌the‌‌police‌‌abuse‌‌
 
circumstances‌‌namely‌‌that‌‌such‌‌suits‌‌for‌‌remedy‌‌are‌‌designed‌‌to‌‌compensate‌‌victims‌‌of‌‌police‌‌
 
abuse,‌‌usually‌‌through‌‌an‌‌award‌‌of‌‌compensatory‌‌damages.‌11‌‌ ‌In‌‌some‌‌circumstances,‌‌victims‌‌are‌‌
 
compensated‌‌millions‌‌of‌‌dollars‌‌as‌‌a‌‌result‌‌of‌‌the‌‌gross‌‌injustice‌‌meted‌‌out‌‌against‌‌them‌‌such‌‌as‌‌ 
in‌‌the‌‌case‌‌of‌‌Rodney‌‌King,‌‌where‌‌he‌‌was‌‌compensated‌‌with‌‌3.8‌‌million‌‌dollars‌‌due‌‌to‌‌the‌‌1991‌‌ 
incident‌‌where‌‌he‌‌was‌‌brutally‌‌assaulted‌‌by‌‌the‌‌LAPD‌‌officers.‌  ‌
 ‌

The‌‌same‌‌unfortunately‌‌is‌‌not‌‌true‌‌in‌‌India.‌‌The‌‌International‌‌Covenant‌‌of‌‌Civil‌‌and‌‌Political‌‌ 
Rights(ICCPR)‌‌states‌‌in‌‌Article‌‌9(5):‌  ‌
 
“‌Anyone‌‌who‌‌has‌‌been‌‌the‌‌victim‌‌of‌‌unlawful‌‌arrest‌‌or‌‌detention‌‌shall‌‌have‌‌an‌‌enforceable‌‌right‌‌ 
to‌‌compensation.”‌12‌ 
 
India‌‌acceded‌‌to‌‌the‌‌ICCPR‌‌with‌‌a‌‌reservation‌‌to‌‌Article‌‌9(5),‌‌stating‌‌that‌‌within‌‌the‌‌Indian‌‌ 
Legal‌‌System,‌‌there‌‌is‌‌no‌‌enforceable‌‌right‌‌to‌‌compensation‌‌for‌‌persons‌‌claiming‌‌to‌‌be‌‌victims‌‌of‌‌
 
unlawful‌‌arrest‌‌or‌‌detention‌‌against‌‌the‌‌state.‌‌However,‌‌the‌‌Supreme‌‌Court‌‌of‌‌India‌‌recognized‌‌ 
the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌seek‌‌a‌‌remedy‌‌for‌‌unlawful‌‌detention‌‌and‌‌arrest‌‌in‌‌the‌‌case‌‌of‌‌Khatri‌‌vs‌‌State‌‌of‌‌ 
Bihar‌13‌‌ ‌where‌‌it‌‌stated‌‌that‌i‌t‌‌should‌‌prepare‌‌to‌‌forge‌‌new‌‌tools‌‌and‌‌to‌‌devise‌‌new‌‌remedies‌‌for‌‌ 
the‌‌meaningful‌‌enforcement‌‌of‌‌Right‌‌to‌‌life‌‌otherwise‌‌it‌‌would‌‌be‌‌reduced‌‌to‌‌a‌‌mere‌‌rope‌‌of‌‌
 
sand.‌14‌  ‌
 
Nevertheless‌‌the‌‌compensation‌‌provided‌‌by‌‌the‌‌Supreme‌‌Court‌‌is‌‌not‌‌punitive‌‌in‌‌its‌‌nature‌‌but‌‌
 
more‌‌so‌‌restorative.‌‌This‌‌therefore‌‌implies‌‌that‌‌the‌‌damages‌‌awarded‌‌would‌‌do‌‌little‌‌to‌‌deter‌‌the‌‌
 
state‌‌and‌‌its‌‌policing‌‌mechanism‌‌from‌‌engaging‌‌in‌‌such‌‌actions‌‌and‌‌as‌‌is‌‌evident‌‌in‌‌modern‌‌ 
India,‌‌Custodial‌‌violence‌‌and‌‌death‌‌is‌‌still‌‌rampant.‌  ‌

11
h
‌ ttps://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/police/uspo40.htm#P1338_315081‌‌
   ‌
12
h
‌ ttps://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx‌‌
   ‌
13
Khatri‌‌And‌‌Others‌‌vs‌‌State‌‌Of‌‌Bihar‌‌&‌‌Ors‌‌on‌‌19‌‌December,‌‌1980(1981‌‌SCR‌‌(2)‌‌408,‌‌1981‌‌SCC‌‌(1)‌‌627)‌  ‌
14
‌ hatri‌‌And‌‌Others‌‌vs‌‌State‌‌Of‌‌Bihar‌‌&‌‌Ors‌‌on‌‌19‌‌December,‌‌1980(1981‌‌SCR‌‌(2)‌‌408,‌‌1981‌‌SCC‌‌(1)‌‌627)‌  ‌
K
 
In‌‌the‌‌case‌‌of‌‌Rudul‌‌Sah,‌‌an‌‌individual‌‌who‌‌was‌‌unlawfully‌‌detained‌‌by‌‌the‌‌Bihar‌‌Police‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌
period‌‌of‌‌14‌‌years‌‌due‌‌to‌‌his‌‌so-called‌‌mental‌‌instability,‌‌as‌‌justified‌‌by‌‌the‌‌Bihar‌‌Police‌‌
 
Authorities.‌‌The‌‌court‌‌recognizing‌‌the‌‌need‌‌to‌‌compensate‌‌Sah‌‌for‌‌the‌‌injustice‌‌meted‌‌out‌‌
 
against‌‌him‌‌awarded‌‌a‌‌compensation‌‌of‌‌Rs.‌‌30,000.‌‌The‌‌striking‌‌part‌‌of‌‌the‌‌judgement‌‌was‌‌that‌‌
 
the‌‌court‌‌clarified‌‌that‌‌the‌‌compensation‌‌offered‌‌would‌‌not‌‌bar‌‌Rudul‌‌Sah‌‌from‌‌invoking‌‌the‌‌ 
remedy‌‌of‌‌a‌‌Civil‌‌Suit.‌15‌‌ ‌The‌‌decision‌‌was‌‌monumental‌‌in‌‌so‌‌much‌‌that‌‌the‌‌court‌‌recognized‌‌the‌‌ 
right‌‌to‌‌remedy‌‌for‌‌Unlawful‌‌detention‌‌or‌‌arrest‌‌and‌‌that‌‌it‌‌did‌‌not‌‌bar‌‌the‌‌victim‌‌from‌‌seeking‌‌
 
civil‌‌remedy‌‌but‌‌the‌‌compensation‌‌it‌‌offered‌‌was‌‌insufficient‌‌to‌‌assist‌‌him‌‌in‌‌pursuing‌‌his‌‌right‌‌to‌‌ 
a‌‌civil‌‌remedy‌‌nor‌‌did‌‌it‌‌offer‌‌much‌‌palliative‌‌help‌‌for‌‌the‌‌mental‌‌agony‌‌and‌‌suffering‌‌he‌‌must‌‌ 
have‌‌endured‌‌during‌‌the‌‌14‌‌years.‌  ‌
It‌‌is‌‌in‌‌the‌‌case‌‌of‌‌Nilabati‌‌Behera‌‌vs‌‌State‌‌of‌‌Orissa,‌‌that‌‌things‌‌started‌‌to‌‌take‌‌a‌‌turn‌‌for‌‌the‌‌ 
better‌‌as‌‌the‌‌Supreme‌‌Court‌‌used‌‌this‌‌opportunity‌‌to‌‌systematically‌‌dissect‌‌the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌seek‌‌ 
compensation‌‌for‌‌violations‌‌of‌‌Right‌‌to‌‌life‌‌and‌‌Personal‌‌Liberty.‌‌The‌‌court‌‌distinguished‌‌the‌‌ 
demarcations‌‌from‌‌the‌‌Public‌‌Law‌‌Remedy‌‌of‌‌compensation‌‌with‌‌the‌‌ordinary‌‌remedies‌‌ 
available‌‌in‌‌Private‌‌Law‌‌proceedings‌‌with‌‌relation‌‌to‌‌violations‌‌of‌‌Fundamental‌‌Rights‌‌due‌‌to‌‌ 
Unlawful‌‌detention‌‌or‌‌arrest.‌‌It‌‌also‌‌delved‌‌into‌‌the‌‌concept‌‌of‌‌sovereign‌‌immunity‌16‌‌ ‌which‌‌ 
essentially‌‌bars‌‌any‌‌civil‌‌proceeding‌‌against‌‌the‌‌State‌‌and‌‌provides‌‌them‌‌immunity‌‌for‌‌the‌‌same.‌‌ 
The‌‌court‌‌asserted‌‌that‌‌for‌‌Public‌‌Law‌‌proceedings‌‌such‌‌as‌‌under‌‌Article‌‌32‌‌or‌‌Article‌‌226‌‌of‌‌the‌‌
 
Indian‌‌Constitution,‌‌the‌‌doctrine‌‌of‌‌sovereign‌‌immunity‌‌will‌‌not‌‌apply‌‌but‌‌it‌‌could‌‌apply‌‌to‌‌ 
private‌‌law‌‌proceedings‌‌of‌‌torts‌‌that‌‌are‌‌committed‌‌by‌‌the‌‌state.‌17‌  ‌
 
Conclusion‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Indian‌‌Judiciary‌‌has‌‌traversed‌‌an‌‌arduous‌‌road‌‌in‌‌relation‌‌to‌‌public‌‌accountability‌‌especially‌‌ 
when‌‌its‌‌concerned‌‌with‌‌police‌‌excess‌‌and‌‌custodial‌‌violence‌‌and‌‌deaths,‌‌in‌‌many‌‌circumstances‌‌ 
the‌‌ratio‌‌decidendi‌‌of‌‌the‌‌court‌‌was‌‌questionable‌‌or‌‌outright‌‌erroneous‌‌but‌‌as‌‌Judiciary‌‌furthered‌‌ 
its‌‌understanding‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Fundamental‌‌Rights‌‌more‌‌so‌‌with‌‌the‌‌Right‌‌to‌‌Life‌‌and‌‌Personal‌‌Liberty‌‌
 
it‌‌became‌‌more‌‌connected‌‌to‌‌the‌‌pulse‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Indian‌‌polity.‌‌The‌‌Supreme‌‌Court‌‌through‌‌the‌‌ 

15
1‌ 983‌‌AIR‌‌1086,‌‌1983‌‌SCR‌‌(3)‌‌508‌  ‌
16
h‌ ttps://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5521ec58-6c1c-4577-a285-abed6baae0b4‌‌
   ‌
17
‌1993‌‌AIR‌‌1960,‌‌1993‌‌SCR‌‌(2)‌‌581‌  ‌
judgements‌‌promulgated‌‌in‌‌Nilabati‌‌Behera‌‌vs‌‌State‌‌of‌‌Orissa,‌‌D.K‌‌Basu‌‌vs‌‌State‌‌of‌‌West‌‌Bengal‌‌
 
and‌‌several‌‌more‌‌provided‌‌a‌‌framework‌‌not‌‌just‌‌for‌‌police‌‌conduct‌‌in‌‌the‌‌event‌‌of‌‌an‌‌arrest‌‌or‌‌ 
detention‌‌of‌‌any‌‌individual‌‌but‌‌also‌‌ascertained‌‌the‌‌various‌‌demarcations‌‌associated‌‌with‌‌the‌‌ 
right‌‌to‌‌seek‌‌remedy‌‌in‌‌the‌‌event‌‌of‌‌custodial‌‌violence‌‌or‌‌death.‌‌Nonetheless,‌‌there‌‌is‌‌still‌‌a‌‌long‌‌
 
way‌‌to‌‌go‌‌as‌‌cases‌‌of‌‌violence‌‌or‌‌death‌‌in‌‌custody‌‌are‌‌still‌‌prevalent‌‌such‌‌as‌‌in‌‌the‌‌horrid‌‌case‌‌of‌‌ 
Jeyaraj‌‌and‌‌Bennicks‌‌in‌‌Tamil‌‌Nadu‌‌which‌‌happened‌‌just‌‌last‌‌year.‌‌Should‌‌the‌‌public‌‌officers‌‌be‌‌
 
held‌‌more‌‌accountable‌‌for‌‌their‌‌demeanors,‌‌should‌‌there‌‌be‌‌a‌‌more‌‌impactful‌‌system‌‌to‌‌hold‌‌ 
them‌‌liable‌‌for‌‌their‌‌actions,‌‌the‌‌state‌‌then‌‌can‌‌fully‌‌enforce‌‌the‌‌true‌‌sense‌‌of‌‌our‌‌fundamental‌‌ 
rights‌‌and‌‌liberties.‌‌   ‌