LaworLogic~Becauselawandlogicarenot

alwaysthesame.

ConstitutionalTortLaw
26 Monday Nov2012
POSTEDBYKARTIKDMONGAINCONSTITUTIONALLAW,COURTJUDGMENTS,HUMANRIGHTS
LEAVEACOMMENT
Tags
CourtJudgments,Damages,humanrights,India,Judiciary,PeoplesUnionforCivilLiberties,Supreme
CourtofIndia

English:Thesupremecourtofindia.Takenabout170mfromthemainbuildingoutsidethe
perimeterwall(Photocredit:Wikipedia)

In this piece the author discusses how the opening of writ jurisdiction as a source for monetary
compensation in cases of Human Rights infringements has led some very arbitrary amounts being
awardedascompensation,especiallyintheabsenceofanysetrulesorjurisprudence.Theproblemwould
bediscussedthroughsomespecificcaselaws.


Thevictimsofanywronggenerallyseekcompensationunderthelawoftortsatthelocalcivil
courts.Thisprocessistediousandinsufficientatmosttimesbutthedamagesawardedunder
torts are well defined and categorized under the heads of Compensatory, Nominal and
Punitive.Theleastamountcourtsprovideisthedirectfinanciallosssufferedbythevictimin
termsofmedicalcostorthecosttorepairthepropertyoranysuchsimilarloss.

Inthepastfewdecades,Indiawitnessedthebirthofanewmechanismfordamagesinspecific
casesofHumanRightsinfringement.Theriseofthisnewjurisprudenceofcompensationwith
respect to Human Rights is welcome step from the constitutional courts but the various
amountsawardedbythehighestcourthasstartedanewdebate.

TheArticle32(2)providestheSupremeCourtwithpowertoissuedirections,ordersorwritsfor
enforcementofanyfundamentalright.Allthecaseswhichwillbediscussedbelowarehabeaus
corpuspetitions.

It all began with the landmark judgment in the case of Rudul Shah vs State of Bihar[1](Rudul
Shahwaskeptinillegaldetentionforover14yearsafterhisacquittalinamurdercase).Inthis
case the Supreme Court decided to grant monetary compensation for violation of right to
personalliberty.Thiswasthefirsttimewhensomeonewasawardedmonetarycompensation
under the writ jurisdiction provided in Article 32 of the constitution. In this case the court
decided to award a compensation of 35,000. The Court awarded this compensation as an
interimrelieftopoorRudulShahandthecourtalsosaidthatthisorderwontprecludeRudul
Shah from bringing a suit for recovery of adequate damages from the State and the officers
responsible. The honourable court gave no reasoning for arriving at the specific amount as
interimrelief.

ThisnewremedywasusedinthecaseofSebastianM.HongrayvsUnionOfIndia[2](C.Daniel
and C. Paul, were last seen alive at an army camp. The court held that this was a case of
custodialdeathandthestateisresponsiblefortheirmysteriousdisappearance).Inthiscasethe
courtorderedtheStatetopay1lakhasexemplarycost,thiswasgiventoboththewidowsas
compensation. In this case again, the court arrived at the amount in a completely arbitrary
mannerwithoutanydiscussionandevengaveitthecolourofexemplarycosts.

NextisthecaseofSmt.NilabatiBeheraAliasLalitBeheraV.StateOfOrissa&Ors[3].Inthiscase
ofcustodialdeathfromOrissa,theSupremeCourttriedtodisplaysomereasoninginarriving
attheamountofcompensation.TheCourtsaidthattheThedeceasedwasagedabout22yearsand
hadamonthlyincomebetween1200to1500.Atotalamountof1,50,000wouldbeappropriateas

compensation.Thementionoftheincomeandagegivesahintthattheamountarrivedat,may

compensation.Thementionoftheincomeandagegivesahintthattheamountarrivedat,may
be based on the principles set out in private torts law but the amount is again arbitrary and
withoutanyreasoningorlogic.

InthecaseofPeoplesUnionforCivilLibertiesv.UnionofIndia[4],Thepolicepicked5persons
fromthevillageandlatershotdeadtwoofthem.Thoughthecircumstanceswerequitesimilar
to the previous two cases and this judgment came 17 years after the Sebastian Hongray
judgment,theSupremeCourtfounditfittoprovide1lakhincompensation.Itsimpossible
to comprehend how even after 17 years, the Supreme Court thinks that the same amount
wouldbesufficientforcompensatingacustodialdeath.

OneyearlaterthesamecourtinthecaseofMalkiatSinghv.StateofU.P.[5],awarded5lakhas
compensationtothefamilyofeachvictim.Thiscasealsohadsimilarfactsaspreviouscase,10
sikh youths were killed in a fake encounter by UP police. Again the Supreme Court gave no
reasoningastohowitarrivedattheamountof5lakhsandwhyayearback1lakhwasthe
sufficient amount for a similar case and now suddenly the same court thinks that 5 lakh
shouldbesufficient.InthesameyeartheinthecaseofAmitadyutiKumarv.StateofW.B.[6]
the Supreme Court gave only 70,000 as compensation to the wife for custodial death of
husband.

In 2003, the Supreme Court again went back to the amount it awarded 20 years back in the
Hongray case. In the case Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble[7], the
victim died because of the torture inflicted on him while in police custody. Its beyond
comprehensionhowtheSupremeCourtfoundtheamountof1lakhascompensationforthis
heinousviolationofHumanRights.

Inthepastthreefouryearsthecompensationawardedinsuchcaseshasbeenintherangeof1
to10lakhrupeesbutagaintheseamountsarehighlyarbitraryanddependonthewhimsofthe
judges.[8]TheSupremeCourttouchednewhighsofarbitrarinesswheninthefamouscaseof
Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter the court left it to the whims of Gujarat government to
decidetheamountofcompensationeventhoughinallsimilarcasesinpastthesamecourthas
awardedcompensation.[9]

TheHonourableDelhiHighCourtinthetragiccaseofUphaarCinemafiretriedusetheprivate
lawtechniquetodecidetheamountofcompensationunderpubliclaw.HighCourtframedout
the average income of the deceased persons, and thereafter multiplied it with the digit 15 in
ordertoconcludethefinalamounttobeawardedtoeachoftheclaimants.Inthismatter,High
CourtawardedRs.18lakhstothelegalheirsofthosedeceasedaged20yearsormore,andRs.
15 lakhs to the legal heirs of those deceased persons aged 20 years or less.[10] The Supreme
CourtoutrightlyrejectedtheuseofthismethodtoawardcompensationunderaPublicLaw
remedy(Article32and226oftheConstitution).SupremeCourt,inthecase,wasoftheopinion
thatconsiderableamountofcompensationbymeansofPublicLawRemedyisnotsafeandthis

thatconsiderableamountofcompensationbymeansofPublicLawRemedyisnotsafeandthis
turnedouttobethereasonforthereductionofcompensationbytheSupremeCourtbutthe
Court at least laid down the factors which should be borne in mind while arriving at the
amountofcompensation.Thesefactorswere

Thefirstistheageofthedeceased,thesecondistheincomeofthedeceasedandthethirdisnumberof
dependants(todeterminethepercentageofdeductionforpersonalexpenses).

The sad truth is that the court has repeatedly ignored these factors and has arrived at
extremelydifferentamountsincaseswithsimilarcircumstances.

Its time for the highest court in this country to lay down some definite guidelines for
compensationunderconstitutionaltortslawforitselfandalltheHighCourtstofollow.Justice
Radhakrishnan himself recommended that a specific legislation is urgently required so as to
addressthecompensationclaimunderPublicLaw.

[1]1983AIR1086.
[2]1984SCC(3)82.
[3](1993)2SCC746
[4](1997)3SCC433
[5](1998)9SCC351
[6](2000)9SCC404
[7](2003)7SCC749
[8]DeputyCommissioner,DharwadDistrict,Dharwadv.Shivakka(2),(2011)12SCC419,R.P.Tyagi
v.State(GovernmentofNCTofDelhi),(2009)17SCC445,DeputyCommissioner,DharwadDistrict,
Dharwadv.Shivakka(2),(2011)12SCC419,PrithipalSinghv.StateofPunjab,(2012)1SCC10.
[9]http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/20090803/india/28167980_1_fakeencounter
sohrabuddinsheikhgujaratgovernment
[10]http://legaljunction.blogspot.in/2011/10/compensationunderpubliclawremedy.html

CreateafreewebsiteorblogatWordPress.com.TheChateauTheme.
Follow

FollowLaworLogic
BuildawebsitewithWordPress.com