RUDUL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1983 AIR 1086
Case Name: RUDUL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR
Citation: Blue Book
Date of Judgement: 10th March 1983
Name of Petitioner: Rudul Sah
Name of Respondent: State of Bihar
Bench: Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar, and Justice Amarendra Nath Sen
Legal Provisions: Articles 21 and 32 of the Indian Constituion, False Imprisonment, Habeus Corpus, Writ petition, Compensation, Ancillary reliefs, Show cause notice and Affidavit.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
- Rudul Sah was arrested on the charge of murdering his wife in the year 1953.
- The petitioner was acquitted by the additional sessions Judge on June 3rd, 1968.
- The petitioner was wrongfully detained in jail for 14 years and was released not before October 16th, 1982. Thus, a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed for his release from prison.
- Radul has asked for compensation for the unlawful detention and additional reliefs such as rehabilitation and reimbursement of expenses that may occur for his medical treatment.
- The petition reached the Court on November 22, 1983, and thus the court was informed that the petitioner had been released. Anyhow the Court had issued a Show Cause notice to the State of Bihar for the granting of the prayers made by the petitioner.
- It was stated that Radul was imprisoned for an additional 14 years because he was of unsound mind and the additional sessions judge ordered to do so.
ISSUES:
- Will the petitioner under Article 21 be compensated for the unlawful detention?
- Can the Supreme Court compensate an individual filing a habeas corpus petition under Article 32?
- Will the petitioner gain any ancillary reliefs?
- Can the petitioner file a suit to recover damages from the state Government?
RELEVANT LAW/RULES/PRINCIPLES:
- Article 21 Protection of life and personal liberty –
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law [1]
- Article 32 Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part –
This article gives the rights to citizens to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of rights conferred by this part is guaranteed[2]
The Supreme Court can issue directions, writs, or orders whichever is more feasible for enforcing any rights. It is also a guaranteed right and cannot be suspended unless otherwise provided by the Constitution.[3]
- False Imprisonment –
This refers to an individual directly and intentionally restricting the other’s movement.
One cannot claim false imprisonment until and unless the restriction was made with full intention, If the intention was there then the imprisoner can be imprisoned for a term of 1 month or pay a fee extending up to rupees 500 or both.[4]
- Habeus Corpus –
It is a part of Article 32 where this writ is issued by an individual who has been unlawfully detained or imprisoned for their release. With this writ, an individual is to be brought in front of the court to understand the legality of the detention.[5]
- Writ Petition –
A writ petition is an act or command by a superior court to the lower courts or court to stop something or tell to do something which is not being done. This is a sort of a way to help in the functioning.
- Compensation –
Compensation is granted to the victim which is given in the amount of the damages suffered by the victim, This is done to help the victim with their financial losses.
- Ancillary reliefs –
These reliefs refer to additional and or secondary reliefs besides the main reliefs requested.
- Show Cause Notice –
A show cause notice is a notice issued against an individual, firm, company, etc. if any misconduct has been conducted. In legal uses, the court has the right to issue a show cause notice mainly to gain more information regarding a hearing or even to make someone present in front of the court.
- Affidavit –
An affidavit is something that is issued claiming factual information. It is something that is made voluntarily and anyone can file an affidavit. It is also to be noted that if a person knowingly signs an affidavit containing false information can face legal prosecution.
FINAL DECISION & REASONING BY THE COURT:
Taking Article 21 into consideration the court had stated that this is a case where an individual’s fundamental right has been violated the right to life, by being falsely imprisoned for an additional 14 years. Thus, stating that it is only reasonable to provide compensation for the harm done to the plaintiff. The Judge also considered this as a way to prevent such malpractices from taking place again.[6]
The court saw the habeas corpus being filled under Article 32 asking for the grant of monetary compensation for the harm done to the petitioner. Thus, reviewing the Supreme Court’s powers and limits within Article 32, it was decided that under Article 32 provided an individual’s fundamental right/s has been violated monetary compensation then can be provided to the plaintiff. With this review, the decision for the compensation was taken.[7]
A show cause notice was issued to the State of Bihar by the Supreme Court after it was informed that the petitioner had been released and thus the liability for the ancillary reliefs was no longer there. This action was taken to help get the plaintiff ancillary reliefs for which he had requested since only the release from prison was not sufficient for the plaintiff. Even after four months, a response was still awaited thus it was restated that the petitioner had been released. Thus, the burden of relief was lifted.[8] The court stated that further action was to be taken to help the helpless prisoners who had been unlawfully imprisoned. Informing that the High Court of Bihar itself should take information from the Home Department of the Government of Bihar on the prisoners who have been there for more than their term states thus releasing them and providing medical reliefs, etc., and monetary compensation.[9]
The Supreme Court ordered to bring in an explanation alongside an affidavit as to why the prisoner was unlawfully detained for a term extending to that for which he was given. The explanation provided stated the Additional session judge had acquitted him but asked to keep him detained until further notice based on the accused being unsound of mind. The Judge countered by stating that an individual of unsound mind could not have been tried in the first place. Thus, believing that this was being used as a scapegoat.
The petitioner can file a suit for recovery of damages if believed that he was not duly compensated. The Judge gave the statement that if the plaintiff further files the suit he will surely be granted reliefs and compensation but the amount of reliefs and money being given can vary since the evidence is not present and thus leaves a little gap in between.[10]
Thus, taking all of this into account and due to the harm done to the petitioner the judgment came in favor of the petitioner where a monetary compensation of Rs 30,000 in addition to the already given Rs 5,000 was granted and the State of Bihar had to pay the sum amount within 2 weeks. This was done to not leave Mr. Sah penniless until he filed a suit for recovery of damages. Ending by stating that “Until then, we hope, there will be no more Rudul Sahs in Bihar or elsewhere”.[11]
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
The case Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar is a landmark one that contributed greatly towards the future implications of law in the areas of monetary compensation for unlawful detention, protection of fundamental rights, check on mental health, and systematic reforms.
As the court decided to provide monetary compensation to the plaintiff for the violation of fundamental rights it became a case which became a legal basis for redressals in case of unlawful detention. A brief discussion on the mental health of an individual who has been unlawfully detained was taken up in this case, which helped in many legal discussions by providing an understanding of how difficult it gets for an individual’s mental health and how traumatic it is for them. The request to check the prison’s information on whether more people have been unlawfully detained brought a significant change as with this request the initiative to improve the justice system was greatly spurred.
The laws of the case were thoroughly discussed and reviewed before being applied and used with the facts. Taking the discussion of Article 32 into account we see how the court discussed and came to a conclusion that under Article 32 the Supreme Court can provide monetary compensation to an individual whose fundamental right has been violated. Thus, we can see how the relevant laws were applied to the relevant facts.
This case affirms and departs from the line of precedents. It affirms the protection of fundamental rights particularly Article 21. The case departs in a couple of areas when we talk about mental health for instance we see how the case took into account the mental trauma an individual faces and how it takes a toll on them and mentions how the unlawful detention might have taken a toll on Rudul Sahs’s mental state. The case calls for systematic reforms where we see the court requesting the administration of Bihar to look into the prisoner’s information and release all those who have been unlawfully detained and provide them compensation. It also formed a basis for monetary compensation for individuals whose fundamental rights have been violated or who may have been illegally detained.
CONCLUSION:
From what I believe the judgment given was correct to some extent but not completely. In this case, all the laws were properly implemented and applied to the relevant facts but the amount granted to Mr. Sah was Rs 30,000 in addition to Rs 5,000 which in my opinion is relatively little for a compensation of 14 years. Although the court mentioned that this was interim compensation and that he could file a suit for recovery compensation of a larger amount should have been granted to Mr. Sah.
In conclusion, this is a case of the utmost importance and a landmark one which helped in the progression of Indian Jurisprudence by bringing into account aspects of the law that were not referred to before.
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 21
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 32
[3] INDIA CONST. art. 32
[4] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 345
[5] INDIA CONST. art. 32
[6] RUDUL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1983 AIR 1086
[7] RUDUL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1983 AIR 1086
[8] RUDUL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1983 AIR 1086
[9] RUDUL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1983 AIR 1086
[10] RUDUL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1983 AIR 1086
[11] RUDUL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1983 AIR 1086
