CASE COMMENTS

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa

BAL5.4 Administrative Law

Submitted by:

Aditya sherekar

UID: UG22-11

Academic Year: 2024

B.A. LL. B (Hons.) 3rd Year

5th Semester

Submitted to:

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

NAGPUR.
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATION

1. P.M PRIME MERIDIAM

2. FIL. FUTURE IN LAW

3. HC HIGH COURT

4. SC SUPREME COURT

5. SCCR SUPREME COURT CASE REPORTER

6. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

TABLE OF CONTENT

2
Sr. No. PARTICULARS PAGE No.

1. TABLE OF ABBRIVATIONS 2

2. RELEVANT PROVSION OF LAW 4

3. RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES 4-5

4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 5

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 5

6. FACTS AND THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE 5-6

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN THE 6-7

SUPREME COURT
8. JUDGEMENT AND FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT 8-10

9. ANALYSIS 11-13

10. THE CONCLUSION 14

I. BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

3
 RELEVANT PROVISION OF LAW

The Constitution of India

“Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”1.

“Article 32

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 Constitution2.
Indian Penal Code, 1860

“Section 176 – Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death.

(1) When any person dies while in the custody of the police or when the case is of the nature
referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub- section (3) of section 174] the nearest
Magistrate- empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any other case mentioned in sub-
section (1) of section 174, any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause
of death either instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police officer; and if
he does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it which he would have in holding an
inquiry into an offence.

(2) The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by him in
connection therewith in any manner hereinafter prescribed according to the circumstances of
the case.

1
2012 (1) CIJ 443.
2
The Indian Penal Code 1860.

4
(3) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an examination of the dead
body of any person who has been already interred, in order to discover the cause of his death,
the Magistrate may cause the body to be disinterred and examined.

(4) Where an inquiry is to be held under this section, the Magistrate shall, wherever
practicable, inform the relatives of the deceased whose names and addresses are known, and
shall allow them to remain present at the inquiry. Explanation. – In this section, expression”
relative” means parents, children, brothers, sisters and spouse.3”

RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

1. To review and analyse the judgement of the case, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
(1993) 2 SCC 746.
2. To gain the basic understanding of the concepts involved in the case.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The Court observed that in the present case, the following issues arose for consideration
before it:

 1. Whether the Appellant’s claim of custodial death is justifiable and corroborated by

presented evidence?
 2. Whether the Constitutional Courts are empowered to award monetary loses in
regard to compensation for infringement of Civil Rights?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

For this research project, the ‘Doctrinal Research Methodology’ is used. This method of
research is popularly used in case commentaries, analyses, ethnographies, etc. This paper is a
source-based study that gets its research data from print sources like original judgments of the
case, books, publications, and e-sources that are both old and new. The researcher has worked
hard to assess and evaluate all sources in order to provide an eloquent and informative
analysis of the case.

3
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 32

5
FACTS AND THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

Brief Facts of the Case

On December 1, 1987, a young man named Suman Behera, approximately 22 years old, was
taken into police custody on allegations of theft under Section 378. He was detained by
Assistant Sub-Inspector Sarat Chandra Barik at around 8 a.m. from his residence in Bisra
Police Station, Sundergarh District, Odisha, and was held at the Police Outpost. The
following afternoon, on December 2, 1987, at around 2 p.m., Suman’s mother, Smt. Nilabati
Behera, received the devastating news that her son’s lifeless body had been found on a
railroad track near a bridge close to Jaraikela train station.

According to a letter dated September 14, 1988, from Smt. Nilabati Behera, which was later
treated as a writ petition by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, Suman’s
body exhibited numerous injuries and wounds, suggesting his death was not due to natural
causes but rather resulted from severe injuries inflicted upon him. The petitioner claimed that
these injuries occurred while Suman was in police custody, after which his body was
allegedly abandoned on the railway tracks to mask the incident. She sought compensation for
the violation of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In response, the police denied the allegations of custodial death. They asserted that Suman
Behera had escaped police custody at Bisra Police Station on the night of December 1-2,
1987, under the watch of Police Officer Chhabil Kujur. The police contended that his body,
found the next day on the railway tracks with several injuries, was the result of being hit by a
train following his escape, thus denying any unnatural cause of death due to police action.

Owing to the contested nature of Suman Behera’s death, the Supreme Court directed the
District Judge of Sundergarh, Odisha, on March 4, 1991, to conduct an investigation and
submit a detailed report on the matter. After considering evidence presented by both parties,
the District Court issued an inquiry report on September 4, 1991. The report concluded that
Suman Behera had sustained multiple injuries while in police custody at Jeraikela police
station, ultimately leading to his death.

6
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN THE SUPREME
COURT

On behalf of Appellants

 The appellant's learned counsel contended that Suman Behera died to multiple abrasions and
wounds inflicted upon him while in police custody. Consequently, this constitutes an instance
of custodial torture resulting in the death of a youth while in custody.
 The appellant's counsel asserted that the deceased endured significant cruelty at the hands of
the police officers, which constituted a violation of his fundamental civil right to live with
dignity. He stated that an individual possesses the right to equal treatment, regardless of
whether they are charged or innocent.
 The petitioner's lawyer asserted that on September 4, 1991, the District Court issued an
inquiry report in accordance with the directives of the Apex Court. The report submitted by
the Court indicated that Suman Behera died from several injuries sustained while in police
custody.
 The learned counsel sought that my client be granted monetary relief to meet her basic needs,
as her son was her sole source of income.

On behalf of the Respondent

 The respondent's counsel contended that the appellant's son, Suman Behera, fled from
police custody the day following his detention. Consequently, in an attempt to evade
law enforcement, he fled rapidly and perished in a collision with a train.
 The attorney for the respondent arrived, refuting the assertions made by the
petitioner's attorney. He reiterated that the deceased could not be perceived
throughout the search undertaken by the cops.
 The respondent's attorney asserted emphatically that the accountability of the police
authorities ceased at the moment he fled from the police outpost.
 The learned counsel contended that Suman Behera succumbed to fatal injuries
sustained in a collision with a passing train. Moreover, he asserted that there were
additional methods to sustain injuries from falling into the railway line.

JUDGMENT AND FINDINGS OF SUPREME COURT

7
In the landmark case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Others,
compensating jurisprudence emerged as a fundamental outcome of the ruling.
The Apex Court's Bench adjudicated based on the facts and evidence presented
by both parties. The Supreme Court noted the absence of unambiguous evidence
indicating an effort to locate the appellant's son following his departure from the
police station premises. The Court additionally indicated that the physician's
findings revealed the injuries could not have been sustained in the train incident,
but rather could have been inflicted by strikes with a lathi. It is assumed that
monetary damages as compensation under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution
may enhance public administration, affirming strict culpability for the violation
of basic rights, where relief is not granted. The Court has articulated that
granting compensation is vital for achieving comprehensive justice and
enforcing civil rights. The Court stated that the State has an obligation to
safeguard the rights of individuals under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
which cannot be denied to an accused individual. The State shall be accountable
for the unlawful actions committed by police officials. In this circumstance, the
notion of sovereign immunity is not applicable. The Court stated that police
officers had a stringent obligation to the civilians within the police outpost
premises. The Court's deliberation encompassed several judgments to
corroborate the case of the appellant's deceased son.
In Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, the Court determined that compensation might
be awarded under Article 32 nevertheless, the petitioner could have forfeited the
primary remedy if it was fundamentally contested. To ascertain the accurate
fraction, the Court referenced the case of Sebastian Hongray v. Union of India,
wherein the Court stipulated ideal costs due to the authorities' inability to

produce the individual, who was reported to have died from an unnatural cause.
The Court referenced the case of Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, which
determined that unconstitutional detention cannot be rectified just by releasing

8
the individual.
The Supreme Court has awarded compensation to the petitioner for her son's
death while under police custody. The court believes there are no specifics to
verify the accuracy. The District Judge indicated that the deceased received a
monthly payout ranging from 1200 to 1500 rupees. The Supreme Court
mandated the respondent, the State of Orissa, to remit to the appellant the sum
of One Lakh Fifty Thousand rupees as deemed appropriate compensation, in
addition to an extra Ten Thousand rupees to the Legal Aid Committee of the
Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court's ruling in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) is a pivotal moment
in administrative law, affirming the notion of state accountability for constitutional torts. This
issue emerged when Nilabati Behera submitted a writ petition under Article 32, requesting
compensation following the strange death of her son, Suman Behera, while in police custody.
The State initially asserted that Suman had fled, but evidence of torture indicated custodial
maltreatment. The Court determined that the right to life under Article 21 mandates the State
to safeguard those in its custody from injury, thereby acknowledging a responsibility to
maintain fundamental rights even when violated by its own agents. This signified a transition
from the conventional perspective of sovereign immunity, wherein the State was
predominantly shielded from accountability for activities undertaken within its official duties.

The court referenced the case Kasturilal Ralia v State of U.P., wherein sovereign immunity
was upheld concerning the vicarious liability of the State for the torts committed by its
employees. By differentiating all previously mentioned cases concerning compensation for
violations of rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution, in relation to constitutional
remedies under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, it is noted that in Kasturilal,
the value of goods confiscated and not returned to the owner due to governmental misconduct
would warrant a claim for damages arising from the tort of conversion through standard legal
procedures. This assertion would not pertain to restitution for the infringement of basic rights.
Consequently, the ruling in the Kasturilal case is inapplicable non this context and can be
distinguished from the present scenario.

9
The court referenced Rudul Shah, which asserts that while compensation may be granted
under Article 32 for fundamental rights violations, it also indicated that "the petitioner could
have been directed to pursue the ordinary remedy of a suit if his compensation claim was
factually contentious."Fourteen.This remark raises doubts about the potential denial of the
remedy under Article 32. It is essential to determine the precise nature of the remedy
available under Article 32, which is distinct and supplemental to the remedies offered by
standard procedures, especially concerning the infringement of basic rights. The court
referenced multiple cases, including Sebastian Hongray v Union of India, where exemplary
costs were awarded due to the detention authorities' failure to produce the missing
individuals, based on the determination that they had all perished under unnatural
circumstances. In Bhim Singh v State of J&K, the court noted that in instances of unlawful
detention, the illegality could not be simply rectified by releasing the individual. The court
subsequently mandated the State to compensate the petitioner for the infringement of his
fundamental rights.

This decision expanded the parameters of state accountability, asserting that the State cannot
invoke immunity in instances of basic rights violations. The Court granted monetary
compensation as a direct remedy under public law for a constitutional infringement, instead
of deferring the issue to civil lawsuits, which may not offer effective or prompt relief. The
ruling emphasized the State's responsibility not only via criminal actions against individual
policemen but also by acknowledging the State's obligation to remedy injustices perpetrated
by its agents. This established a significant precedent by determining that the enforcement of
fundamental rights may encompass compensatory relief when the State neglects to safeguard
persons from abuse by public authorities.

The Nilabati Behera ruling is crucial in administrative law as it underscores that state
accountability under public law should act as a deterrent to administrative misconduct. The
case underscored the critical function of public law remedies in safeguarding the rights
enshrined in the Constitution, reconciling private law concepts of tort liability with the
preservation of fundamental rights. The Court confirmed that public law remedies are vital
for upholding justice and accountability by holding the State liable for compensation,
particularly where civil remedies fail to adequately address the severity of the infringement.
This case established a significant precedent for subsequent decisions regarding custodial

10
abuse and state liability, enhancing the legal framework on state accountability and the
safeguarding of human rights.

CONCLUSION

11
The Supreme Court's judgment in Mano Dutt v. State of U.P 4underscores critical principles
in criminal jurisprudence, particularly concerning the evaluation of evidence, the credibility
of witnesses, and the legal standards governing self-defense. The Court's thorough analysis
revealed that despite the complexities surrounding witness testimonies and the prosecution's
obligation to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, the evidence presented was
compelling and robust enough to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable
doubt.

The Court's reaffirmation that the testimony of family members should not be automatically
dismissed as biased highlights a nuanced understanding of the role of eyewitnesses in
criminal cases. It illustrates that credibility must be assessed based on the context of the
incident rather than the relationship of the witness to the victim. Furthermore, the ruling
clarifies that while the prosecution is expected to account for injuries to the accused, a failure
to do so does not inherently undermine the case if the core evidence remains convincing.

In this case, the established facts, including the preparation and intent of the accused to
commit violence, along with the corroborating medical evidence, clearly pointed to a
premeditated assault rather than an act of self-defense. The Court's conclusion emphasizes the
importance of a thorough and pragmatic evaluation of all evidence presented, thereby
reaffirming the standards required for justifying self-defense claims in the context of a violent
encounter.

Ultimately, the decision serves as a significant reference point for future cases, reinforcing
the principle that a well-supported prosecution can prevail despite challenges concerning
witness reliability and the intricacies of self-defense, thus contributing to the integrity of the
legal system in addressing violent crimes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARTICLES REFFERED
4
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21.

12
Ameya Kilara, “Justification and Excuse in the Criminal Law: Defences Under the Indian
Penal Code”, STUDENT BAR REVIEW, Vol. 19, No. 1 (2007), pp. 12-30.

STATUTES REFFERED

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

BOOKS REFERED

K L Vibhute, “PSA PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW”, 14th ed. (2019), p.160.

CASES REFFRED

 Yunis @ Kariya v. State of M.P

 Marimuthu v. State of T. N
 Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra
 Satbir Singh v. State of U.P.
 Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra
 Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh
 Rajender Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar

13