Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 509 (3.13 seconds)
Documents citing Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983

Association Of Victims Of Uphaar ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 February, 2000

35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizens, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a Civil Suit or criminal proceedings. The State of course has the right to be indemnifies by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. The decisions of this Court in the line of cases starting with Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar granted monetary relief to the victims for deprivation of their fundamen tal rights in proceedings through petitions filed under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the rights available under the civil law to the aggrieved party where the courts found that grant of such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that sprit that the courts have moulded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the courts take into account not only the interest of the appli cant and the Respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties property particularly where the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles apply and the courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumstances and self restraint, lest proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law. Some of those situations have been identified by this Court in the cases referred to Brother Verma, J."
Delhi High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 1 - S K Mahajan - Full Document

S.Anand vs )The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 July, 2012

"The human rights of the second petitioner were violated with impunity and he is entitled to be suitably and adequately compensated. The power of the Court to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086:(1983) 4 SCC 141; Sebestian M. Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1026 : (1984) 3 SCC 82; Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494 : (1985) 4 SCC 677; Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters, AIR 1990 SC 513 : (1990) 1 SCC 422 and State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil (1991) 2 SCC 373.
Madras High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Sangaiyya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 August, 2010

We can only say that the police officers acted in a most high- handed way. We do not wish to use stronger words to condemn the authoritarian acts of the police. If the personal liberty of a Member of the Legislative Assembly is to be played with in this fashion, one can only wonder what may happen to lesser mortals Police officers who are the custodians of law and order should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of citizens and should not flout the laws by stooping to such bizarre acts of lawlessness. Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to protect and not to abduct. However the two police officers, the one who arrested him and the one who obtained the orders of remand, are but minions, in the lower rungs of the ladder. We do not have the slightest doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir but it is not possible to say precisely where and with whom, on the material now before us. We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. Any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 141 and Sebastian M.Hongroy Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1984 SC 1026 : (1984 Cri LJ 830). When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs 50,000 within two months from today. The amount will be deposited with the Registrar of this Court and paid to Shri Bhim Singh".
Madras High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 2 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Avijit Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2025

Their duty is to protect and not to abduct. However the two police officers, the one who arrested him and the one who obtained the orders of remand, are but minions, in the lower rungs of the ladder. We do not have the slightest doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir but it is not possible to say precisely where and with whom, on the material now before us. We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs 50,000 within two months from today. The amount will be deposited with the Registrar of this Court and paid to Shri Bhim Singh.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Anilkumar A.B vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2022

"3. However the two police officers, the one who arrested him and the one who obtained the orders of remand, are but minions in the lower rungs of the ladder. We do not have the slightest doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir but it is not possible to say precisely where and with whom, on the material now before us. We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983 (3) SCR 508 : AIR 1983 SC 1086 and Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1026. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischevous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within two months from today. The amount will be deposited with the Registrar of this Court and paid to Shri Bhim Singh."
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - P V Kunhikrishnan - Full Document

Mausam Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 August, 2025

In this context, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court: the first in line is the decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527] wherein this Court relying upon the decision in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798] decried the illegality and impropriety in awarding compensation in a proceeding in which the court's power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution stands invoked and thus observed that it was a clear case for award of compensation to the petitioner for custodial death of her son. It is undoubtedly true, however, that in the present context, there is no infringement of the State's obligation, unless of course the State can also be termed to be a joint tortfeasor, but since the case of the parties stands restricted and without imparting any liability on the State, we do not deem it expedient to deal with the issue any further except noting the two decisions of this Court as above and without expression of any opinion in regard thereto."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

K.P. Hussain Reddy And Ors. vs Executive Engineer, M.I. Division And ... on 11 October, 2002

On the question of the liability of the State to pay compensation, the Court referred to Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Maharaj v. Attorney General of Trindad and Tobago (supra) and observed that right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental and basic and that no compromise is possible with this right. It is non-negotiable. The State has no right to take any action which will deprive a citizen of the enjoyment of his basic right except in accordance with law which is reasonably fair and just. The Court then referred to two hypothetical cases as under.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 78 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Hardam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 September, 2019

Their duty is to protect and not to abduct. However the two police officers, the one who arrested him and the one who obtained the orders of remand, are but minions in the lower rungs of the ladder. We do not have the slightest doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons of the Government of Jammu and 93 of 252 ::: Downloaded on - 28-10-2019 13:45:50 ::: CRA-D-109-DB of 2014 -94- Kashmir but it is not possible to say precisely where and with whom, on the material now before us. We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 3 SCR 508 and Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1026. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within two months from today. The amount will be deposited with the Registrar of this Court and paid to Shri Bhim Singh."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 142 - Cited by 0 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

Common Cause, A Registered Society vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 1999

These cases, namely, Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar (supra); Bhim Singh vs. State of J&K (supra), SAHELI, a Woman's Resources Centre vs. Commr. of Police, Delhi (supra); People's Union of Democratic Rights vs. Police Commissioner, Delhi (supra) and Sebastin M. Hongray vs. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 82 = AIR 1984 SC 1026, do not refer to the decision of this Court in Kasturilal's case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 105 - Cited by 756 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next