Published on: 29 September 2022, at 09:09 IST
Court – Supreme Court of India
Citation – Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that custodial death or custodial torture or other violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that Hon’ble Courts has
- Whether the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is patent and incontrovertible?
- Whether the violation is gross and of a magnitude to shock the conscience of the court?
- Whether the custodial torture alleged has resulted in death or whether custodial torture is supported by medical report or visible marks or scars or disability?
Para – 46
In cases where custodial death or custodial torture or other violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 is established, the courts may award compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226. However, before awarding compensation, the Court will have to pose to itself the following questions:
(a) whether the violation of Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible,
(b) whether the violation is gross and of a magnitude to shock the conscience of the court,
(c) whether the custodial torture alleged has resulted in death or whether custodial torture is supported by medical report or visible marks or scars or disability.
Where there is no evidence of custodial torture of a person except his own statement, and where such allegation is not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, or where there are clear indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated fully or in part, the courts may not award compensation as a public law remedy under Article 32 or 226, but relegate the aggrieved party to the traditional remedies by way of appropriate civil/criminal action.
Drafted by – Abhijit Mishra
Key Words – Custodial Death, Torture, Illegal Detention, Compensation, Public Law Remedy.