RUDUL SAH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

RUDUL SAH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 32 to award compensation as a remedy for violation of fundamental rights, especially for illegal detention, and in this case, refusal to do so would be lip-service to the right to liberty.

Parties
Petitioner: Rudul Sah; Respondent: State of Bihar; Respondent: Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 August 1983
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) No. 1987 of 1982 / Final Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Petition allowed
Legal Topics
Article 32 Remedies for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights, Article 21 Right to Life and Personal Liberty, Illegal Detention, Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rudul Sah

Petitioner

State of Bihar

Respondent

Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) No. 1987 of 1982 / Final Judgment on Merits

  1. 1 Whether Supreme Court can grant compensation under Article 32 in a habeas corpus petition for deprivation of fundamental rights
  2. 2 Whether Article 21 encompasses a right to compensation for its violation

Ratio Decidendi

Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 32 to award compensation as a remedy for violation of fundamental rights, especially for illegal detention, and in this case, refusal to do so would be lip-service to the right to liberty.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed

Orders

  • As interim measure, State of Bihar must pay petitioner Rs. 30,000 in addition to Rs. 5,000 already paid.
  • Payment to be made within two weeks.