False Imprisonment

In one minute

False imprisonment is the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification. No walls, no touching and no long time are needed. Blocking one way while another is open is not enough.

It is actionable without proof of damage. In exams, this topic is asked as "define false imprisonment and state its essentials and defences", and as a problem on arrest, detention and compensation under Article 21.

Legal provision

• Article 21, Constitution of India: no person is deprived of life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law.
• Article 22(1) and (2): a person arrested must be told the grounds and must be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours.
• Articles 32 and 226: the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue habeas corpus and award compensation for a violation of Article 21.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: sets out when the police or a private person may arrest. An arrest outside these rules is not lawful.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are offences. The civil claim and the criminal case are separate.

Meaning and definition

False imprisonment is the unlawful and total restraint of a person's freedom of movement. The claimant is kept within a limit that he cannot pass. The limit may be a room, a vehicle, a building or the open street held by guards. The word "false" means unlawful. It does not mean untrue.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: The essentials

1. Restraint. The defendant stops the claimant from leaving. This can be by force, by a threat, by taking his key or papers, or by submission to an arrest.
2. Totality. The restraint must be complete. In Bird v. Jones, part of a bridge footway was fenced off. Bird was stopped but was free to go back. The Queen's Bench, by a majority, held that this was not imprisonment.
3. No lawful justification. A lawful arrest or a valid court order is a defence.
4. Intention. The act of restraint must be intended. Negligent restraint is dealt with under negligence.

Step 2: What is not needed

• Walls or locks. Words and a show of authority are enough if the claimant submits.
• Touching. Pointing to a guard at a door can be enough.
• Long time. A short restraint is still false imprisonment. Duration only affects damages.
• Proof of damage. The tort is actionable per se.

Step 3: Knowledge of the claimant

• In Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation Co. (1919), the claimant was held at the company's office without knowing it. Court of Appeal judges held that knowledge of the confinement is not essential.
• The English view has been debated. The safe exam position is that awareness helps prove the tort, and the absence of awareness may reduce damages.

Step 4: Refusing a way out

In Herd v. Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co. (1915), a miner refused to work and demanded to be taken up the mine shaft before his shift ended. The House of Lords held that the employer was not liable for false imprisonment. The miner had agreed to the terms of the lift, and a refusal to give a better exit is not an imprisonment.

Step 5: Defences

• Lawful arrest by a police officer under a warrant or without a warrant in the cases that the law allows.
• Arrest by a private person only in the cases that the law allows, for example a person committing a serious offence in his presence.
• Consent to the restraint, for example agreeing to a search.
• Necessity or the care of a person who is mentally ill and dangerous, under the law.
• Parental control within reasonable limits.
• Court order that is valid on its face.

Step 6: Remedies

• Habeas corpus (a court order to produce a detained person) to end a present unlawful detention.
• Damages for the loss of liberty, humiliation and any injury. A court may award exemplary damages for abuse of power.
• Compensation against the State under Articles 32 and 226 for a violation of Article 21. This is a public law remedy.
• Self-help by a reasonable escape.

Step 7: The Indian public law line

• Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983): a man kept in jail for 14 years after his acquittal. The Supreme Court awarded him Rs 30,000 as interim compensation under Article 32.
• Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1985): an MLA was arrested at night and kept in custody for four days. Two remand orders were obtained without producing him. The Court awarded Rs 50,000 for violation of Articles 21 and 22(2).
• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): compensation for a custodial death is a public law remedy. Sovereign immunity does not apply to it.
• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994): the power to arrest is one thing and the justification for using it is another. An arrested person may have someone informed, and this must be recorded.

1. 1. Was the claimant stopped from leaving?
   If no: no false imprisonment.
2. 2. Was the restraint total, with no reasonable way out?
   If no: no false imprisonment.
3. 3. Was the restraint intended?
   If no: not this tort.
4. 4. Was there lawful justification?
   If yes: defence. If no: false imprisonment.

Don't confuse: false imprisonment and malicious prosecution

Point	False imprisonment	Malicious prosecution
Protects	Freedom of movement	Freedom from a false criminal case
Who acts	The person who restrains	The person who starts the case
Proof of damage	Not needed	Needed
Malice	Not needed	Needed
Favourable end	Not needed	Needed

Common mistakes

• Saying that locking a room is needed. Words and authority can be enough.
• Treating any obstruction as imprisonment. The restraint must be total.
• Saying that the tort needs proof of damage. It is actionable per se.
• Reading "false" as untrue. It means unlawful.
• Forgetting that the police are liable too when they arrest outside the law.

Apply it

Leading case laws

• Bird v. Jones (1845)

  Facts. Part of Hammersmith Bridge footway was fenced for a regatta. Bird was stopped by two policemen and told he could go back. He stayed about half an hour.

  Principle. Imprisonment needs total restraint. Partial obstruction is not enough.

  Significance. Leading case on totality.

• Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1985)

  Facts. An MLA was arrested at 3 AM and kept for four days, with remand obtained without producing him.

  Principle. Articles 21 and 22(2) were violated. Rs 50,000 compensation was awarded.

  Significance. Compensation even after release.

• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994)

  Facts. A young advocate was held by the police for five days.

  Principle. The power to arrest is separate from its justification. An arrested person may have someone informed.

  Significance. Limits on arrest.

• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)

  Facts. A young man died in police custody and his body was found on a railway track.

  Principle. Compensation under Articles 32 and 226 is a public law remedy. Sovereign immunity does not apply.

  Significance. State liability for custodial violations.

• Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India (1984)

  Facts. Two men taken to an Army camp disappeared and could not be produced under a habeas corpus writ.

  Principle. The respondents were guilty of civil contempt. Exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakh were paid to each wife.

  Significance. Enforcement of habeas corpus.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• False imprisonment is total restraint without lawful justification.
• Walls, touching and long time are not needed.
• Partial obstruction is not imprisonment (Bird v. Jones).
• Actionable per se. Habeas corpus and damages are the remedies.
• Against the State, compensation under Articles 32 and 226 for a violation of Article 21.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• Malicious Prosecution
• Battery
• Torts affecting the person