CASE COMMENT

RUDAL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 496)

FACTS:

In 1953, Rudul Sah was arrested for murdering his wife. The additional session judge of
Muzaffarpur on June 3, 1968 declared him innocent, and directed his release from prison.
Even after being acquitted he had to serve another 14 years in prison and was finally released
from prison on October 16, 1982. Rudul Sah filed a petition for habeas corpus, the petitioner
not only sought his release but also claimed the following

1. the petitioner asks for medical treatment at Government expense;

2. petitioner asks for an ex gratia payment for his rehabilitation, 1. The petitioner asks
the government to provide medical services
3. Requests compensation for his illegal detention for more than 14 years.

The court also stated that they wanted to respond promptly to the notice of the cause, but they
did not provide any explanation within 4 months. On April 16, 1983, Shri Alakh Deo Singh,
the warden of Muzaffarpur Central Prison, submitted an affidavit in compliance with the
order.

It is said that Rudul Sah was of unsound mind when he passed the acquittal order, although
when he sent the report to the civil surgeon, he reported that Rudul Sah was mentally healthy
at the time of his acquittal. In addition, another question is whether it took 14 years to correct
his mental imbalance. However, the government did not produce any medical reports to
support any diagnosis of whether he was insane, nor they provided any evidence as to which
drugs were prescribed and how long he was diagnosed.

ISSUES RAISED:-

 Whether the Supreme Court can award compensation under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution for breach of a fundamental right or not?
 Does Article 21 cover the right to compensation for violations of fundamental rights?
JUDGEMENT:-

The Supreme Court had issued a notice of reason to the government, asking why the
petitioner served 14 years in prison even after his acquittal. It also instructed the state to
provided evidence for the government to claim that he was of unsound mind. The court
further asked whether he was indeed insane, and to provide his medical record and the ways
used for his treatment for insanity.

However, there is no evidence that the defendant was insane when he was acquitted. In
addition, even if he was actually mad when he was acquitted, he could not be imprisoned for
a long time. The reason is simple. Even an insane person has certain legal rights to the trial
process. According to paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur, reported
on February 18, 1977 that the petitioner was normal and that this information was
communicated to the Law Department on February 21, 1977. Why was the petitioner not
released for over 5&1/2 years thereafter? It was on october 14, 1982 that the Law Department
of the Government of Bihar directed that the petitioner should be released. Why was the Law
Department so insensitive to justice? The court held that the States ’response was ruthless and
has no factual basis. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner’s detention was totally
unjustified.

Next, the court reviewed whether the petitioner’s request for auxiliary relief could be ruled on
the basis of its right to remedy.

The Art 32 of the Constitution confers power on the Supreme Court to issue directions or
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III. However it cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of
rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of
Courts, Civil and Criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated
upon in a suit instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it. The court held that the
petitioner should later file a suit to recover damages from the State Government and the
erring officials.
The court held that if the court was limited to releasing unlawful detainees by order without
doing anything to improve their lives, Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and
personal freedom, would be deprived of its meaning. The court held

“The right to compensation is a palliative means for acts of illegal instruments that act
in the name of the public interest. These acts of illegal instruments act in the name of
the public interest and provide the state with power as a shield.”

The court held that the compensation is palliative in order to give the right to life under
article 21 a better meaning. It also stated that the right to enforce the law enforcement power
was transferred to the Supreme Court under Article 32. The right specified in the third part of
the Constitution is itself a basic right.

Therefore, the court’s final judgment was that it ordered the state to pay the petitioner 30,000
rupees as an interim measure in addition to the 5,000 rupees already paid.

ANALYSIS:-

Rudal Sah's case is a Landmark case in the field of state liability. This case is not for the as
the Indian Constitution does not clearly provide for the award of compensation under the
fundamental rights but this judgement it gives a new interpretation to the scope of right to
remedy. We are aware that victims have a right to claim damages under law of torts and this
case complements the compensation awarded. The present case also helped to understand a
deeper understanding of unlawful detention and its constituents. This was the first case in
which a writ was used to claim compensation and it was awarded. Even though there was a
Grave miscarriage of justice the Supreme Court did call out to the government of Bihar on
the callous and insensitive response to the plight of petitioner during his trial. The Supreme
Court also criticized the government the way they made the jailer a scrape boat and not claim
responsibility for the actions of the higher officials.

REFERENCES:-

1. Bangia R.K. 2017 LAW OF TORTS ; Delhi, ,Allahbad Law Agency

2. https://indianlegalsolution.com/rudul-sah-vs-state-of-bihar-1983/ visited on 4.11.2020
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/810491/ visited on 4.11.2020