Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa

Quick Summary

This case confirms that when a person dies in police custody, the State must give a clear and convincing explanation. If it fails, the Court can hold the State liable for violating Article 21 and award compensation in a public law claim under Articles 32/226. The Supreme Court found that Suman Behera died due to custodial violence and granted compensation to his mother, Nilabati Behera, while rejecting the defense of sovereign immunity.

Issues

• Was the death of Suman Behera a custodial death, making the State responsible under Article 21?
• Is monetary compensation a proper remedy under Article 32 or 226 for violation of fundamental rights?

Rules

• In custodial death cases, the burden shifts to the State to explain the cause of death. A weak or missing explanation supports State liability.
• Article 21 protects life with dignity and guards against torture or inhuman treatment, including while in custody.
• Sovereign immunity does not apply when fundamental rights are violated.
• Courts may award monetary compensation as a public law remedy under Articles 32/226 to make rights meaningful.

Arguments

Judgment

• The Supreme Court held that Suman Behera died due to custodial violence while in police custody.
• Article 21 protects against arbitrary deprivation of life and against torture; State owes a strict duty of care in custody.
• Sovereign immunity cannot defeat a constitutional claim for violation of fundamental rights.
• Monetary compensation is an appropriate and necessary public law remedy under Articles 32/226.
• Relief: ₹1,50,000 compensation to the petitioner (kept in fixed deposit for 3 years; interest payable), ₹10,000 costs to Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, and directions for action against responsible police officials.

Ratio

If a person dies in State custody, the State must explain the death convincingly. Failure allows the Court to infer liability for breach of Article 21 and to award compensation in a public law proceeding. Sovereign immunity cannot shield the State from constitutional accountability.

Why It Matters

• Transforms Article 21 into a workable remedy by allowing compensation.
• Sets a custody-care standard: the State must protect those it holds.
• Clarifies that sovereign immunity has no place in fundamental rights violations.

Key Takeaways

• Burden shift: Custodial death → State must explain.
• Public law compensation: Available under Arts. 32/226.
• Article 21 scope: Life with dignity; no torture.
• No sovereign immunity: Not a defense to rights breach.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “NILA = No-Immunity, Life-Assured”

1. Spot: Death in custody → think Article 21.
2. Shift: Ask: Did the State give a convincing explanation?
3. Seal: If not, seek public law compensation.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Custodial Death

Death of a person while in State custody (police, prison, etc.).

Public Law Compensation

Money awarded directly by constitutional courts for rights violations.

Sovereign Immunity

A defense that the State cannot be sued—not available for fundamental rights breaches.