SOIBAM O KHOMDONBI DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N. Biren Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. S. Reisang, learned G. A. appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE most precious of the precious fundamental rights of the citizen is right to life. Such right of a citizen is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the bounden duty of the State under the Constitution to protect the life and personal liberty of a citizen and it shall not be deprived of except according to procedure established by law. The State is liable for the constitutional tort and the constitutional tort denotes the case in which compensation or exemplary damages were awarded by the Court while a constitutional right was violated. Such constitutional remedy was made to partake the character of civil actions. The award of compensation was made only in addition to the normal civil remedies. The matter regarding the tortuous liability of the State had been raised and discussed in juristic circle beginning from the case of Devaki Nanda Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1134. The Apex Court laid down the concept of constitutional tort and compensatory jurisdiction in that case and awarded Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) as exemplary costs for harassing the petitioner. This concept of awarding exemplary costs had been also considered in Rudul Shah Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1086. In that case, the petitioner filed the Habeas Corpus before the Court for his immediate relief and inter alia prayed for rehabilitation costs, medical charges and compensation for illegal detention. After his released in 1982, the question before the Court was whether in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32, the Court can pass an order for payment of money, if such order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of fundamental right and decided in the affirmative. Therefore, the state must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's right. It may have recourse against those officers. The two important points decided in Rudul Shah (supra) are that (1) violation of constitutional right gives raise a right to a civil liability enforceable in Civil Court and (2) it formulates basis for a theory of liability under which a violation of right to the personal liberty can give raise to civil liability with the extreme concern to protect and preserve the fundamental rights of a citizen. The Apex Court awarded compensation to the undertrial for violations of his fundamental right and also for the failure of the State to discharge its constitutional obligations to the citizen. The Supreme Court again in a case from the State of Manipur, i. e. Sebastian M. Hongary Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1026 Court awarded exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each to the wives of the missing men. In all these cases, the Apex Court awarded compensation under the writ jurisdiction for the constitutional torts against citizen. This concept of awarding compensation in the writ jurisdiction for violation of the fundamental rights had been followed in a number of cases.

(3.) THE Constitution Bench in Oleum Gas Leakage, i. e. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1086 held that Article 32 is not only injunctive in ambit but also remedial in scope. It is also powerless to assist a person while his fundamental right has been violated. It includes the power to award compensation.