Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa - Case Analysis

Introduction of Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa

Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa, 1993, is a landmark case that impacted the legal approach to custodial deaths in India. The Supreme Court, in this case, reinforced that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution extends to all individuals, including convicts, undertrials, and prisoners in custody and cannot be deprived except by procedure established by law. It also set a crucial precedent by holding the State accountable for violations of the right to life in custody making compensation a valid remedy for such constitutional breaches. The Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa marked an important shift in the jurisprudence surrounding custodial deaths and state liability in India.

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

Historical Context and Facts of Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa

In the case at hand, in 1987, Suman Behera, a 22-year-old, was arrested in connection with a theft investigation. He was detained at the Jeraikela Police Outpost. 

Discovery of the Body

The following day, Suman Behera was found dead on a railway track near the police outpost, having not been released from police custody. His body had multiple injuries which were determined to be the cause of his death.

Allegation by the Petitioner

The mother of Suman Behera, Smt. Nilabati Behera, sent a letter to the Supreme Court, alleging that her son had died in police custody due to the injuries inflicted by the police. 

Respondent’s Claim

The Respondents claimed that Suman Behera had escaped from custody around 3 a.m. on December 2, 1987 and had been killed by a passing train. However, no credible independent evidence was presented to support the claim that any search efforts were made to locate Behera following his alleged escape.

Letter as a Writ Petition

The letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, and the Supreme Court initiated suo moto action. The petitioner sought compensation for the violation of Suman Behera’s fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof was on the respondents to explain how Suman Behera sustained the injuries that led to his death while in police custody.

Issue addressed in Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa

The main question which was addressed in this case was whether the constitutional courts in India, exercising their jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226, could award monetary compensation for violations of fundamental rights, particularly in light of the concept of sovereign immunity?

Legal Provisions involved in Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa

Article 32 of the Constitution of India

Article 32 deals with the remedies for the enforcement of the rights. It states that-

1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Article 226 deals with the power of the High Courts to issue writs. It provides that-

1. Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
2. The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the scat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
3. Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-

• furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order
• giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favor such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.

4. The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.

In Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa, 1993, the Supreme Court held that the State could no longer escape liability in public law for violations of fundamental and basic human rights. When the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is infringed particularly in cases of custodial death, the State is compelled to pay compensation. In the present case, the liability of the State of Orissa to pay compensation was undisputed. The Court explained the difference between public law liability and private law liability. In public law, compensation serves as a remedy for the violation of constitutional and fundamental rights, particularly when committed by state agents, while in private law, compensation is pursued through tort actions.

The decision also highlighted the recognition of custodial torture and death as serious violations of human rights. It also stated that the State has a duty to protect those in custody and failure to do so results in liability. The Court directed the State of Orissa to pay a compensation of Rs 1,50,000/- to the Appellant and Rs 10,000/- to the Legal Aid Committee in the Supreme Court. The compensation awarded in this case was treated as a constitutional remedy underlining the importance of protecting fundamental rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in this case concluded that Article 32 not only serves to affirm the violation of fundamental rights but also provides a means for granting effective remedy including compensation for the violation of the right to life. The Court also highlighted that it is the obligation of the State to ensure that no infringement of an individual right to life occurs while the individual is in its custody except under lawful conditions. In custodial cases, where the right to life under Article 21 has been infringed the State cannot escape the responsibility by acknowledging the violation and relegating the victim to civil or criminal proceedings. The Court held that public law remedies including compensation must be provided to redress such violations, upholding the citizen’s indefeasible right to life.