Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. vs Ravikant S. Patil on 19 March, 1991
In Ravikant S.Patil's case (supra), High Court has
awarded compensation for violation of fundamental rights under
Article 21 of an under trial prisoner, who was handcuffed and taken
through the streets in procession by police during investigation.
Union Carbide Corporation Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 3 October, 1991
In Union Carbide Corpn. Vs. Union of
India, (1991) 4 SCC 584 also, it is observed that Courts have to
develop own law and if the Courts find that it is necessary to
construct a new principle of liability to deal with unusual situation,
which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future, then there is no
reason why the Court should hesitate to evolve such principle of
liability.
Ajab Singh & Anr. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. on 9 March, 2000
Ajab Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 521, was a case where the
deceased was lodged in a jail and was in judicial custody. He was
removed to the hospital, where he died. The cause of death was
shock and hemorrhage. The police authority put forth concocted
explanation. The C.B.I was not only directed to register a case and
conduct investigation but the State Government was held responsible
in law for death of the deceased and was, thus, found liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners for the same. The law, thus, is fairly
settled that compensation by way of public law proceedings can
always be invoked and the Courts can evolve new tools and mould
remedy to provide redressal in cases where violation of right or
fundamental right is seen. I am, thus, clear in my mind that case for
award of compensation on account of these two deaths is made out.
Article 9 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983
In Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141, it
was held that in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the
Supreme Court can grant compensation for deprivation of
fundamental rights. Having observed that Art 32 can not be a
substitute for enforcement of rights and obligations which can be
enforced through the ordinary process of courts, civil or criminal,
Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to hold that the refusal to pass an
order of compensation in favour of the person will be doing lip-
service to his fundamental right to liberty, which the State Govt. has
so grossly violated. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Art 21, which
guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its
significant contents if the powers of the court were limited to passing
the orders to release from illegal detention. As observed, one of the
telling ways in which the violation of the right can reasonably be
prevented and due compliance of the mandate of the Art secured, is
to mould its violators in the payment of compensation.