Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
P4 to P6 or the averments of the petitioners that they had been assured protection and that no vandalism would recur. Therefore, it is conclusive that the incident that took place on 23.9.1993, demolition of the building of the petitioner No. 4, was solely because of the inaction on the part of the police. This violated the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner No. 4 under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the 'administrative law of accountability' of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, as held by the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta 1993 CCJ 1100 (SC), shall extend to compensate the petitioner No. 4. This court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution can definitely grant compensation in terms of the remedy available under public law based on strict liability for contravention of the fundamental rights.
P. Gangadharan Pillai vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 31 July, 1995
This court had considered similar issue in the decision reported in P. Gangadharan Pillai v. State of Kerala 1995 (2) KLJ 201. This court held as follows:
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
It has been well settled that this Court can pass an order in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of fundamental right. The award of compensation in proceeding under Article 32 by the Supreme Court or under Article 226 by the High Court is a remedy available under public law based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. [Vide Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa 1993 ACJ 787 (SC)]. In the above mentioned decision, reference has been made to all the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and it was held that in the State's liability for contravention of fundamental rights, the doctrine of sovereign immunity has no application in the constitutional scheme and is no defence to the constitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution which enables award of compensation for the contravention of the fundamental rights when the only practicable mode of enforcement of fundamental rights can be the award of compensation.
1