Introduction

This case is about the death of a young man in police custody being termed as custodial deathand his mother, Nilabati Behera, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India, alleging that her son's death was caused by police brutality. The Supreme Court treated her letter as a writ petition and awarded compensation to her for the custodial death of her son.

Issues

1. Custodial Death: Was the death of Nilabati Behera's son, Suman Lal Behera, a custodial death attributable to the state?

2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: Did the custodial death constitute a violation of the deceased's fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

3. Appropriate Relief: What would be the appropriate relief to be granted to the petitioner for the custodial death of her son? Specifically, was monetary compensation an appropriate and sufficient remedy in such a case?

Reasoning

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the principle of strict liability in cases of custodial deaths. It emphasized that the burden of proof lies heavily on the state to explain the circumstances of a death occurring in custody. The Court reasoned that the inherent vulnerability of individuals in custody necessitates a higher degree of state accountability. It also highlighted the importance of protecting fundamental rights, especially the right to life and personal liberty, and the state's obligation to ensure these rights are not violated by its instrumentalities. The Court rejected the traditional view that monetary compensation was not an appropriate remedy in cases of constitutional violations. It recognized the limitations of traditional remedies and the need for more effective redressal mechanisms.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the facts of the case, including the post-mortem report and other evidence, to determine whether the death was indeed custodial and attributable to the state. It scrutinized the state's explanation for the death and found it unsatisfactory. The Court acknowledged the systemic issue of custodial violence and the need for a strong deterrent. It recognized that monetary compensation, while not a complete substitute for the loss of life, could provide some measure of solace to the bereaved family and act as a deterrent against future custodial violence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the death of Suman Lal Behera was a custodial death caused by the state's failure to protect his life and personal liberty. The Court awarded substantial monetary compensation to Nilabati Behera as a form of relief. 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. This case established a significant precedent for awarding compensation in cases of custodial deaths and human rights violations. It reinforced the principle of strict liability for custodial deaths and highlighted the state's responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of individuals in its custody. The judgment served as an important step in addressing the issue of custodial violence in India.