Case Law On Judicial Review And Compensation Awarded To Victims’ Families
1. Legal Framework
Constitutional and Statutory Basis
Article 21, Constitution of India:
Right to life and personal liberty includes the right to compensation in case of unlawful deprivation of life.
Article 226 (State High Courts) and Article 32 (Supreme Court):
Courts can issue writs for enforcement of rights, including compensation orders.
Torts and Civil Liability Principles:
State liability for negligence or human rights violations under public law.
State vicarious liability: The state may be liable for acts of its employees under tort law.
Compensation Guidelines:
Judicially determined; includes funeral expenses, loss of income, and mental anguish.
2. Judicial Principles
Courts increasingly recognize compensation as a part of Article 21 remedies.
Judicial review ensures accountability of government authorities and public servants.
Compensation is not punitive, but restorative for victims’ families.
3. Important Case Laws
Case 1: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
Police killed a minor in custody. Victim’s family sought compensation.
Held:
Supreme Court held the State liable for custodial death.
Compensation of ₹1 lakh awarded to victim’s family.
Court emphasized that violation of Article 21 attracts civil consequences.
Principle:
State responsibility for unlawful acts of its officials.
Judicial review ensures both punishment and compensation.
Case 2: Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141
Facts:
Prisoner detained illegally for 14 years without trial.
Held:
Supreme Court awarded monetary compensation of ₹50,000 for violation of personal liberty.
Highlighted that compensation is integral to enforcement of fundamental rights.
Principle:
Judicial review can mandate state accountability and provide just and fair compensation for deprivation of rights.
Case 3: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 (Compensation context expanded in later cases)
Facts:
Victim’s family suffered due to police negligence and lack of proper investigation in a murder case.
Held:
Courts held that failure of the criminal justice system entitles victim’s family to compensation.
Compensation must cover financial loss, mental agony, and legal expenses.
Principle:
Judicial review extends beyond punitive action to restorative justice for victims’ families.
Case 4: MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987) 1 SCC 395
Facts:
Oleum gas leak in Delhi caused deaths and injuries. Victims’ families sought compensation.
Held:
Supreme Court awarded interim compensation of ₹1.5 lakh per deceased, with final amounts determined later.
Liability was imposed on corporate entity for hazardous activity.
Principle:
Courts can impose absolute liability on enterprises for dangerous operations affecting public, awarding compensation without lengthy litigation.
Case 5: Chameli Singh v. State of UP (1996) 2 SCC 549
Facts:
Victim died in police firing during a protest. Family sought compensation for custodial/state-inflicted death.
Held:
Supreme Court awarded ₹2 lakh to family.
Emphasized State duty to protect life under Article 21 and responsibility to compensate for negligence.
Principle:
Judicial review ensures remedy for unlawful killings by state agents.
Compensation is both deterrent and restorative.
Case 6: Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1 (Police Reforms and Compensation context)
Facts:
Public interest litigation on police reforms highlighted custodial deaths and negligence.
Held:
Courts directed State governments to compensate families of victims where deaths were caused due to police lapses.
Principle:
Judicial review enforces state accountability for systemic failures and directs compensation mechanisms.
Case 7: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts:
Family of a victim killed in police encounter claimed compensation.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled compensation for violation of Article 21 is appropriate.
Court emphasized no rigid formula; compensation must be just and fair, considering victim’s dependents.
Principle:
Judicial review empowers courts to determine amount based on context, including future earnings and mental anguish.
4. Key Principles from Case Laws
Compensation as Part of Article 21 Remedies:
Not just punitive action; restorative justice is a constitutional mandate.
Judicial Review Ensures State Accountability:
Courts can hold government officials, police, and corporations liable for negligence or unlawful acts.
No Rigid Formula for Compensation:
Courts consider age of victim, income, mental trauma, dependents, medical/legal expenses.
Preventive and Deterrent Function:
Awarding compensation ensures officials and authorities take preventive measures.
Absolute Liability in Public Hazard Cases:
As seen in MC Mehta, corporations engaged in hazardous activities cannot escape liability.
5. Conclusion
Judicial review in India serves a dual purpose:
Corrective Justice: Ensuring victims’ families receive financial and moral restitution.
Deterrence and Accountability: Holding the State and its agencies responsible for negligence or unlawful actions.
Key takeaways:
Courts combine constitutional, tort, and civil law principles to award compensation.
Amount of compensation is flexible, context-based, and aims at restoring dignity and livelihood of families.
RELATED Blog
comments