Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
In case of Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa,
(supra) the Apex Court held that citizen complaining of the
infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 cannot be
told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to
life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts
exercising writ jurisdiction. The Court observed that if the
guarantee that deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be
made except in accordance with law, is to be real, the enforcement
of the right in case of every contravention must also be possible in
the constitutional scheme, the mode of redress being that which is
appropriate in the facts of each case. This remedy in public law
has to be more readily available when invoked by the havenots, who
are not possessed of the wherewithal for enforcement of their rights
in private law, even though its exercise is to be tempered by
judicial restraint to avoid circumvention of private law remedies,
where more appropriate. (Emphasis supplied).
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.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 503 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Smt. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan vs Vasant Raghunath Dhoble And Anr on 8 September, 2003
In
the case of Shakila Abdul Gafarkhan v. Vasant Raghunath,
(2003) 7 SCC 747, the Apex Court while directing payment of
compensation observed that the amount of compensation shall be as a
palliative measure and does not preclude the affected person from
bringing a suit to recover appropriate damages from the State
Government and its erring officials if such a remedy is available in
law.