Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.32 seconds)

Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996

The Apex Court in the case of D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal (supra) has held that a mere declaration of invalidity of an action or finding of custodial violence or death in lockup, does not by itself provide any meaningful remedy to a person whose fundamental right to life has been infringed. Much more needs to be done. It was held that where the infringement of the fundamental right is established, the Court cannot stop by giving a mere declaration. It must proceed further and give compensatory relief, not by way of damages as in a civil action but by way of compensation under the public law jurisdiction for the wrong done due to breach of public duty by the State of not protecting the fundamental right to life of the citizen. The Court observed that to repair the wrong done and give judicial redress of legal injury is a compulsion of judicial conscience. It was held that the award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights carried out under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalizing the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect fundamental rights of the citizen.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 2221 - K Singh - Full Document

Shri Rama Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 23 December, 1996

In Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1997 SC 1739, the Apex Court considered the Report of All India Committee on Jail Reforms (headed by Justice A.N. Mulla) where the Committee had noted that firstly, prisoners do not enjoy the access to medical expertise that free citizens have. Their incarceration places limitations on such access: no physician of choice, no second opinions, and few if any specialists. Secondly, because of the conditions of their incarceration, inmates are exposed to more health hazards than free citizens. Prisoners, therefore, suffer from a double handicap. The Court observed that in 'American Prison System' by Richard Hawkins and Geoffrey, there is a discussion at pages 411-13 as to whether a prisoner can seek any relief from the Court because of neglect of medical treatment on the ground of violation of their constitutional right. The Court observed that policy makers may bear this also in mind while deciding about the recommendations of the Mulla Committee Report.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 39 - Full Document
1