Constitutional torts (compensation under Art 21)
Constitutional Torts and Compensation under Article 21
What are Constitutional Torts?
Constitutional torts refer to the legal remedy available for violation of constitutional rights by the state or its agencies, where the victim can claim compensation for wrongful actions or negligence by government officials. It is a form of state liability for breach of fundamental rights.
Unlike ordinary torts (which deal with private wrongs), constitutional torts arise from the violation of constitutional guarantees, especially the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Article 21 and Compensation
Article 21 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty.
When this right is violated by the state (for example, through illegal detention, police excess, custodial torture, or death), the courts can order compensation as a remedial measure.
Compensation serves as both monetary reparation and deterrence against future violations.
The doctrine of constitutional torts gives courts the power to award compensation directly under their writ jurisdiction (Articles 32 and 226).
Legal Basis and Importance
The courts have read the right to life expansively to include not only protection against unlawful deprivation of life but also compensation when life or liberty is violated.
Compensation orders are part of judicial activism aimed at strengthening human rights.
This doctrine strengthens the accountability of the state.
Landmark Case Law Analysis on Constitutional Torts and Compensation
1. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Facts: The petitioner’s son died in police custody. She claimed compensation for custodial death.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that custodial deaths amount to a violation of Article 21 and directed the state to pay compensation as constitutional tort liability.
Significance: This case firmly established the state’s liability to pay compensation for violations of fundamental rights under Article 21.
2. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union of India (1981)
Facts: The petitioner was illegally detained and suffered due to the custodial environment.
Judgment: The Court recognized the right to life as inclusive of the right to live with human dignity. It ruled that violations of this right entitle the victim to compensation.
Significance: Expanded the scope of Article 21 and laid the groundwork for compensation claims in constitutional torts.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts: The petition dealt with custodial violence and illegal detention.
Judgment: The Court issued detailed guidelines to prevent custodial violence and held that violation of these guidelines entitles the victim to compensation.
Significance: Reinforced compensation as a remedy for violation of constitutional safeguards against custodial torture.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) – Oleum Gas Leak Case
Facts: Due to leakage of toxic gas from a factory, several lives were endangered.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ordered compensation for victims under the doctrine of constitutional tort and absolute liability of the state and industries.
Significance: Applied constitutional tort doctrine to environmental and industrial disasters.
5. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Facts: Petitioners raised issues of police reforms to prevent custodial torture and abuse of power.
Judgment: The Court ordered compensation for victims of custodial violence and mandated police reforms.
Significance: Affirmed that state failure to protect constitutional rights attracts tort liability and compensation.
6. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Facts: The petitioner’s son died due to police brutality while in custody.
Judgment: The Supreme Court awarded compensation and emphasized state accountability for custodial deaths as violation of Article 21.
Significance: One of the first explicit recognitions of the state's duty to compensate victims of constitutional violations.
7. Veerappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991)
Facts: Victims of police firing sought compensation.
Judgment: The Court awarded compensation as constitutional tort to the victims and stressed the responsibility of the state in safeguarding life.
Significance: Strengthened state accountability for excessive use of force.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case Name | Year | Principle on Constitutional Torts and Compensation |
|---|---|---|
| Nilabati Behera v. Orissa | 1993 | Compensation for custodial death under Article 21 |
| Francis Coralie Mullin v. India | 1981 | Right to live with dignity includes compensation for violations |
| D.K. Basu v. West Bengal | 1997 | Custodial violence guidelines and compensation |
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | 1987 | Compensation for environmental disasters under constitutional tort |
| Prakash Singh v. Union of India | 2006 | Compensation and police reforms for custodial abuses |
| Veerappan v. Tamil Nadu | 1991 | Compensation for victims of police firing |
Conclusion
The doctrine of constitutional torts empowers courts to award compensation for violation of fundamental rights, especially under Article 21.
Compensation serves as a remedy for victims and a deterrent against future violations by the state.
The courts have been proactive in expanding this doctrine to cover custodial violence, illegal detention, environmental harm, police excess, and other violations of the right to life and dignity.
This judicial approach ensures that constitutional rights are not just theoretical but practically enforceable with effective remedies.
Constitutional tort liability has become a key instrument in advancing human rights and state accountability in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments