Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar

A court acquitted Rudul Sah in 1968. The jail kept him until 16 October 1982, more than 14 years later. The Supreme Court heard his habeas corpus (a court order to produce a detained person) petition after his release. It ordered the State of Bihar to pay him money for the wrong done to his liberty.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Supreme Court of India (sci.gov.in)

Parties

Rudul Sah — petitioner. He was acquitted on 3 June 1968 and released from jail only on 16 October 1982.

State of Bihar — first respondent. The Court held it responsible for the unlawful detention and ordered it to pay.

Another — second respondent, described only as "another" in the judgment.

Procedural History

1. The Court of Sessions, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, acquitted Rudul Sah on 3 June 1968. The jailor's affidavit records an order of 30 August 1968 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur. It reads: the accused is acquitted but must be detained in prison till further order of the State Government and the I.G. (Prisons), Bihar.
2. Rudul Sah filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1987 of 1982 in the Supreme Court under Article 32.
3. On 22 November 1982, the State's counsel said Rudul Sah had already been released. The Court held that the prayer for release was infructuous (no longer needed). It still issued a notice to show cause (a notice asking why an order should not be made) on prayers 2, 3 and 4.
4. The Bihar Government gave no explanation for over four months.
5. On 31 March 1983, the Court said release was not the end of the matter. It called for a written explanation, backed by an affidavit, on why he was kept in jail for over 14 years after acquittal.
6. On 16 April 1983, Alakh Deo Singh, Jailor, Muzaffarpur Central Jail, filed the affidavit.
7. On 26 April 1983, the Court adjourned the petition to the first week of August 1983. It was unclear why the affidavit called Rudul Sah insane or why the Sessions Judge ordered his detention.
8. The petition was heard again and decided on 1 August 1983.

Facts

1. The Court of Sessions, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, acquitted Rudul Sah on 3 June 1968.
2. He was not released. He was freed from jail on 16 October 1982, more than 14 years after the acquittal.
3. He filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32. He asked for release on the ground that his detention was unlawful.
4. He also asked for rehabilitation, reimbursement of future medical expenses and compensation for illegal incarceration.
5. On 22 November 1982, the State's counsel told the Court that he had already been released. His prayer for release became infructuous.
6. Prayer No. 2 sought medical treatment at Government expense. Prayer No. 3 sought an ex gratia (as a favour, without legal duty) payment for rehabilitation. Prayer No. 4 sought compensation for over 14 years of illegal detention.
7. The jailor's affidavit of 16 April 1983 gave these points:
   • Rudul Sah was received on 25 March 1967 from Hazaribagh Central Jail.
   • He was produced regularly before the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur.
   • On 30 August 1968, the Judge ordered that he be acquitted but detained until further order of the State Government and the I.G. (Prisons).
   • He was of unsound mind when that order was passed. A letter No. 1838 dated 10 May 1974 from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Muzaffarpur, conveyed this to the Law Department through the District Magistrate.
   • The Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur, reported on 18 February 1977 that he was normal. This was sent to the Law Department on 21 February 1977.
   • He was treated well under the Bihar Jail Manual.
   • He was released on 16 October 1982 under the Law Department's letter No. 11637 of 14 October 1982.
8. The affidavit gave no data on how he was judged insane. It did not say what measures were taken to cure him or whether a cure took 14 years.
9. No medical opinion or jail record was produced. Letter No. 1838 of 10 May 1974 was not produced.
10. After the Civil Surgeon's report of 18 February 1977, the Law Department directed release only on 14 October 1982. That is over 5½ years later.
11. The State had already paid Rudul Sah Rs. 5,000.

Issues Raised

1. Was the detention of Rudul Sah in jail after his acquittal unlawful?
2. Can the Supreme Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 32, order the State to pay money as compensation for the violation of a fundamental right?
3. Must the petitioner be sent to an ordinary civil suit for damages?
4. If compensation is ordered, how much, and does it bar a later suit for damages?

Arguments Contended

For the petitioner (Rudul Sah)

• He was detained illegally for over 14 years after a full trial ended in acquittal. He had obtained release, so he was entitled to be compensated for the illegal detention.
• The Court should pass an order for payment of compensation in the habeas corpus petition itself.
• The judgment records no other argument by his counsel, Mrs. K. Hingorani.

For the respondent (State of Bihar)

• The State's counsel, D. Goburdhan, said that the petitioner had already been released. The judgment records no other submission from him.
• The State did not raise the objection that the petitioner should file a suit for damages. The Court noted this with relief.
• The State's explanation, through the jailor's affidavit, was that the petitioner was of unsound mind when acquitted and was treated well under the Jail Manual.
• The Government of Bihar agreed to pay the amount ordered. The Court clarified that its order was not based on that consent.

Court's Reasoning

Chandrachud, C.J. (for the Court)

1. Noted: the petition disclosed a sordid and disturbing state of affairs. The petitioner was acquitted on 3 June 1968 but freed only on 16 October 1982.
2. Noted: his release made his main prayer infructuous. The Court still issued notice on prayers 2, 3 and 4, and the State kept silent for over four months.
3. Held: release was not the end of the matter. The Court called for an affidavit explaining the 14 years.
4. Noted: the adjournment to August 1983 was needed because the affidavit and the Sessions Judge's order did not show why the petitioner was called insane or why detention was ordered.
5. Noted: more adjournments would serve no useful purpose. The Court said past experience suggested the State would not place satisfactory material before it. It would not be left to guess whether he was held for the benign reason of insanity.
6. Noted: the jailor's affidavit says openly what is notorious. The petitioner was not released on acquittal and was reported insane.
7. Held: the affidavit leaves much to be desired. It gives no data on how he was found insane. It names no measures taken to cure him. It does not say whether his mental imbalance took 14 years to set right.
8. Noted: no medical opinion or jail record shows what treatment was prescribed and for how long. Letter No. 1838 of 10 May 1974 was not produced. Nothing shows he was insane on the date of acquittal.
9. Why: if he was insane on that date, he could not have been tried at all, because an insane person cannot enter upon a defence. The Code of Criminal Procedure gives insane persons statutory rights in trial.
10. Noted: the Civil Surgeon reported him normal on 18 February 1977. The Court asked why he was not released for over 5½ years after. The Law Department ordered release only on 14 October 1982. It asked why the Law Department was so insensitive to justice.
11. Held: the Court was inclined to believe that "the story of the petitioner's insanity is an afterthought and is exaggerated out of proportion". If he was insane at any time, the insanity must have followed his unlawful detention.
12. Why: a sense of helplessness and frustration can cause despondency, and persistent despondency can lead to mental imbalance. At least a skeletal medical record could have shown treatment if he was insane.
13. Noted: the Department should have asked a senior officer to file the affidavit, as a courtesy to the Court. Instead the jailor was made a scapegoat for the dereliction of higher officers.
14. Noted: this is not an isolated case. The Court felt concerned that there was darkness all around in the prison administration of the State of Bihar. The Bhagalpur blindings had taught no lesson. The Court hoped and prayed that higher officials would give personal attention to the breakdown of prison administration and rectify the injustice to helpless persons.
15. Held: the High Court of Patna should itself examine the matter. It should call for statistics from the Home Department on unlawful detentions. A table from each jail should show how many convicts have been in jail for more than 10, 12, 14 and 16 years.
16. Held: the High Court can then release prisoners held unlawfully. It can ask the State to take steps for their rehabilitation by paying adequate compensation where necessary.
17. Noted: the Court then took up how to rectify the injustice within its writ jurisdiction under Article 32. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of rights in Part III. These include habeas corpus, mandamus (an order to a public body to do its duty), prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.
18. Held: the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right. Article 32 describes it as guaranteed.
19. Noted: Article 32 cannot replace the enforcement of rights that ordinary civil and criminal courts can enforce well. A money claim must be filed in a suit in the lowest competent court.
20. Held: the important question was whether the Court, under Article 32, can order payment of money as compensation that follows the deprivation of a fundamental right. This case illustrates such cases. The detention after acquittal was wholly unjustified.
21. Held: the Court could not resist the petitioner's argument. It saw no effective answer except the stale and sterile objection that he may sue for damages. The State's counsel had not raised that objection.
22. Noted: the petitioner could be sent to a suit if his claim were factually controversial. That is, if a civil court might or might not uphold it.
23. Held: if he sued, a decree for damages would have to be passed. The exact amount cannot be predicted without evidence.
24. Held: refusing compensation would be "doing mere lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated".
25. Held: Article 21 would be denuded of its significant content if the Court could only order release from illegal detention. One telling way to prevent violation and secure compliance is "to mulct its violaters in the payment of monetary compensation".
26. Why: administrative sclerosis (hardening) leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary.
27. Noted: the right to compensation is "some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest". Such bodies use the powers of the State as a shield.
28. Held: for civilization not to perish, the country must educate itself to accept that respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers.
29. Held: taking the great harm into account, the State must pay, as an interim measure, a further Rs. 30,000 in addition to the Rs. 5,000 already paid. The amount must be paid within two weeks.
30. Noted: the Government of Bihar agreed to pay. The Court clarified that its order was not based on their consent.
31. Held: the order does not stop the petitioner from suing for appropriate damages against the State and its erring officials. The compensation is in the nature of a palliative.
32. Why: the Court could not leave the petitioner penniless until the end of his suit, its appeals and execution. A full debate on the fine points of fact and law has to await the suit. The State may raise those points in the suit.
33. Noted: the Court ended with the hope that there would be no more Rudul Sahs in Bihar or elsewhere.

Concurring and dissenting opinions

The judgment of the Court was delivered by Chandrachud, C.J. The report records no separate, concurring or dissenting opinion by Sen or Misra, JJ. It ends with Petition allowed.

Authorities

• The Court names no earlier case. It relies on the text of Articles 21 and 32 and the Code of Criminal Procedure's rules on trial of insane persons.
• Also cited in footnotes: none. The report has no footnotes.

Provisions mentioned

• Article 32 of the Constitution: the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Part III rights. It is itself a fundamental right. The Court may issue directions, orders or writs.
• Article 21 of the Constitution: protection of life and personal liberty.
• Part III of the Constitution: the Fundamental Rights.
• Code of Criminal Procedure: gives insane persons statutory rights in the procedure for their trial. No section number is given.
• Bihar Jail Manual: the affidavit says Rudul Sah was treated well under it.

Judgement

1. The detention of Rudul Sah in prison after his acquittal was wholly unjustified. The petition is allowed.
2. The State of Bihar must pay Rudul Sah a further Rs. 30,000 (thirty thousand rupees) as an interim measure. This is in addition to the Rs. 5,000 already paid.
3. The State must pay within two weeks from 1 August 1983.
4. The State may have recourse against its officers.
5. The order does not prevent Rudul Sah from filing a suit for appropriate damages against the State and its erring officials. The State can raise its points of fact and law in that suit.
6. Recommendation: the High Court of Patna should itself examine the unlawful detention of prisoners in Bihar jails. It should call for the jail-wise statistics described above.
7. No order on costs is recorded.

Legal Principle / Ratio

The Supreme Court can order the State to pay money under Article 32 when a fundamental right, here Article 21, has been violated. The payment is a public-law palliative and does not bar a civil suit for damages.

Key holding: "respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy". The State must repair the damage its officers do to those rights.

Obiter: the High Court of Patna should examine unlawful detentions in Bihar jails and may release prisoners and order compensation. The Court also expressed the view that the insanity story was an afterthought.

Subsequent Treatment

Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P., Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench), Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016, decided 3 January 2023. Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

• Ramasubramanian, J. described Rudul Sah as a case where the unlawful 14-year detention shook the conscience of the Court. The Court awarded an arbitrary sum and kept the right to sue open (Ramasubramanian, J., para 151).
• Ramasubramanian, J. said that after Rudul Sah there was no looking back. He listed later cases awarding public-law compensation in a table (Ramasubramanian, J., para 152).
• The same opinion says that, after Kasturi Lal and following Rudul Sah, the Court has treated misconduct of public servants as ground for compensation. It adds that the conceptual basis needs clarity and may be better resorted through enacted law (Ramasubramanian, J., answer to Question No. 4(iv) in the prelude).
• Nagarathna, J., writing a separate opinion, listed Rudul Sah first among cases where monetary compensation was granted for violation of fundamental rights (Nagarathna, J., para 51).
• Nagarathna, J. said Rudul Sah gave momentum to fundamental rights against state lawlessness. The Court chose damages to mulct violators and offer victims a palliative. She also noted Chandrachud, C.J.'s worry that damages in writ cases could let parties bypass the ordinary civil action (Nagarathna, J., para 54).
• Nagarathna, J. said Rudul Sah and Chandrima Das show that a public-law action for compensation serves an independent purpose. It is no longer a substitute for a private claim (Nagarathna, J., para 59).
• Nagarathna, J. said constitutional tort (a civil wrong) should be used only for brutal violations like those in Rudul Sah and Chandrima Das (Nagarathna, J., para 64).

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, Supreme Court of India, decided 18 December 1996. Bench: Kuldip Singh and Dr. A.S. Anand, JJ. The report has no numbered paragraphs, so none are cited.

• The headnote records that the Court has judicially evolved a right to compensation for established unconstitutional deprivation of life or personal liberty. It cites Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar among its authorities.
• Quoting Nilabati Behera, the Court said that Rudul Sah and the cases in its line concern compensation for contravention of fundamental rights under Articles 32 and 226. Sovereign immunity (the old rule that the State cannot be sued in tort) does not apply to that remedy.
• In the same quotation, Kasturi Lal is described as concerning a different matter, the value of goods seized and not returned to the owner (Anand, J.).

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India (nine-judge Constitution Bench), decided 24 August 2017.

• Chandrachud, J. listed a right to compensation for unlawful arrest among the rights held to flow from Article 21 and cited Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar (Chandrachud, J., para 150).
• Nariman, J. listed the right to compensation for unlawful arrest in the same way. He cited Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141 at para 10 in a footnote to his para 65 (Nariman, J., para 65).

Other later cases (not summarized): Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988, (2000) 2 SCC 465, which says the Court awarded compensation in many decisions beginning from Rudul Sah. Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, AIR 1986 SC 494, which the judgment's citator note lists as following this case. AIR 1987 SC 1086, listed in the same note as relied on.

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The Court called the Rs. 30,000 an "interim measure" and a palliative. It gave no formula for the amount.
• It left the full damages for a civil suit. A poor petitioner would still have to sue.
• The Court noted that Article 32 is not a substitute for ordinary remedies. It called a claim factually controversial if a civil court may or may not uphold it. It held that this case was not one.
• The State's counsel did not raise the objection that a suit should be filed.
• The Court recorded that its order did not rest on the State's consent. It did not name a source beyond Articles 21 and 32.

Significance

• This is the case that opened the way to compensation for violations of fundamental rights in writ proceedings.
• It shows that Article 21 would lose force if relief stopped at release.
• It led to a line of public-law compensation cases (see Subsequent Treatment).
• The Court also suggested that the Patna High Court examine unlawful detention in Bihar jails.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: compensation can be ordered under Article 32 for violation of Article 21. Trap: it is an interim palliative, and a suit for damages remains open.
• Amount: Rs. 30,000 more, on top of Rs. 5,000 already paid, within two weeks.
• Facts to remember: acquitted 3 June 1968, released 16 October 1982, 14 years in unlawful custody.
• Trap: the main prayer for release had become infructuous before decision. The Court still went on to the compensation prayer.
• Article 32: the right to move the Supreme Court is itself a fundamental right.
• Insanity plea: rejected as an afterthought. No medical record was produced.
• The State may recover from its officers. The Court had no doubt that a suit for damages would end in a decree.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. This judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so no paragraph numbers are cited for it. The citation is taken from the judgment's own header.