The Case of Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa (1993)

August 7, 2024

A seminal ruling in Indian jurisprudence, the nilabati behera vs state of orissa case has had a profound effect on the conversation around custodial deaths and the defense of fundamental rights as stated in the article 21 of the indian constitution. The Supreme Court of India’s ruling in this case strengthened the legal framework against custodial violence by highlighting the state’s obligation to protect the life and liberty of those under its control.

nilabati behera vs state of orissa Case Facts

  • In the current case, Smt. Nilabati Behera informed the Supreme Court in a letter that her 22-year-old son, Suman Behera, had passed away while in police custody following several injuries.
  • Under article 32 of the indian constitution, the honorable court took suo moto action and turned it into a writ petition.
  • The petitioner sought damages for the infringement on her son’s fundamental right to life, which is protected by article 21 of the indian constitution.
  • Suman Behara was held at the police outpost in Orissa while the authorities looked into his possible involvement in a theft.
  • His lifeless body was discovered close to the railroad tracks the very next day. His body was covered in cuts that suggested an untimely demise.
  • The acknowledged facts include that Suman Behera was apprehended by the police on 1.12.1987 at 8 a.m., and that he was not released from jail until his death the following day on a train track close to the Police Outpost Jeraikela. It is further stated that his multiple injuries were not natural causes of death.
  • Therefore, it is evident that the onus is on the respondents to provide an explanation for how Suman Behera got the injuries that led to his demise.

nilabati behera vs state of orissa Issues

  • Is it possible to determine if the petitioner’s allegation of custodial death in this case is true and supported by proof?
  • What statute controls the State’s obligation to reimburse damages in cases where it is at fault, and how is this obligation different from the private sector’s obligation to reimburse damages in a tort action?
  • Are Indian constitutional courts able to grant monetary damages as recompense for violations of basic rights in spite of the notion of sovereign immunity?

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

  • In her letter dated 14.9.1988, the petitioner asserted that it was a case of custodial death, and it was deemed a writ petition under article 32 of the indian constitution.
  • Her son died from the several injuries he received while in police custody. Then they dropped his body onto the railroad tracks.  She filed the petition alleging that her fundamental right to life, which is guaranteed by article 21 of the indian constitution, had been violated and that she should be compensated.

Respondent:

  • The respondents made a compelling case that the District Judge erred in his conclusion and that the injuries to the deceased’s head and face could not possibly have been caused by the alleged police torture.
  • The State contended that although the medical evidence showed that the deceased had received lathi blows, the type of injuries on his face and left temporal region were not likely caused by the lathis; as a result, the death had happened as the police had suggested, in a train accident, and the lathis was not the cause of the death.

nilabati behera vs state of orissa Judgment

  • According to the court’s decision, the petitioner is compensated for her son’s death while under police custody. The District Judge recorded and verified the following facts: Suman Behera, who was twenty-two years old, was paid between 1,200 and 1,500 rupees per month. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of this evidence.
  • The State of Orissa, the respondent, has been directed to provide Smt. Nalabiti Behera with appropriate compensation in the amount of one lakh fifty thousand rupees, in addition to ten thousand rupees to the Supreme Court Legal Aid committee.
  • Important to remember is that in public law actions, compensation granted by this court under Article 32 or by the High Court under Article 226 is a remedy based on strict culpability for the infringement of fundamental rights (in this case, Article 217).
  • Sovereign immunity does not apply in public law compensation claims, in contrast to private law, where it may be used as a defense in tort suits. It is important to consider the differences between the two categories of remedies since they provide insight into the rationale behind compensating parties in these kinds of cases.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf

Leave a Comment