Mandamus Lies to Award Compensation for Illegal Detention and Reckless Misuse of Preventive Security Proceedings

The petitioner, a resident of Varanasi visiting his native village in Prayagraj, was forcibly taken from his home by Sub-Inspector Surya Prakash Dubey on November 26, 2022, without being informed of any charges.

He was detained in the lockup of P.S. Handia for approximately 24 hours until November 27, 2022.

The petitioner alleged that the officer demanded a bribe of ₹20,000 for his release.

An internal inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (A.C.P.) dismissed the petitioner's complaint without recording his statement or that of his witnesses.

Subsequently, the police initiated proceedings under Section 107/116 of the Cr.P.C. on November 29, 2022, which the petitioner contended was a "cover-up" to justify the prior illegal detention.

The respondent state later admitted the proceedings under Section 107/116 were an "inadvertent omission" as the underlying dispute was merely a domestic squabble.

1. Whether the detention of the petitioner in police custody for 24 hours without the authority of law constituted a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the court can exercise its power to "mould relief" under Article 226 to grant monetary compensation despite such relief not being specifically prayed for in the writ petition.

3. Whether security proceedings under Chapter VIII (Sections 107/116) of the Cr.P.C. can be initiated in cases involving purely domestic disputes.

Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, establishing that compensation is a remedy in public law for the infringement of indefeasible rights.

Fayyaz Shamshoddin Attar v. State of Maharashtra, holding that matrimonial or domestic disputes do not attract security proceedings intended for maintaining public tranquility.

M. Sudakar v. V. Manoharan, which empowers writ courts to grant necessary relief even if not specifically claimed.

State of U.P.’s policy dated March 23, 2021, which mandates ₹25,000 compensation for established cases of illegal detention.

The Court found that Sub-Inspector Dubey failed to provide a specific denial regarding the allegations of dragging the petitioner from his home and the subsequent 24-hour detention, leading the court to deem these facts admitted.

The Court reasoned that police have "little business" in domestic violence matters unless a cognizable offence is disclosed; otherwise, the remedy lies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The court characterized the officer's actions as high-handed and the subsequent Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. proceedings as a "panic" measure to obliterate the misdeed of illegal confinement.

Applying the principle of moulding relief, the Court determined that a mere disciplinary inquiry (requested by the petitioner) would be insufficient to remedy the constitutional wrong.

The Court concluded that the state must be held strictly liable for the tortious acts of its functionaries committed under the color of authority.

The Court issued a mandamus directing the State to pay the petitioner ₹25,000 as ad hoc compensation and ₹10,000 in costs within 30 days.

The State was granted liberty to recover the total amount (₹35,000) from the personal remuneration of the defaulting officer, Surya Prakash Dubey.

The Court further clarified that the petitioner remains free to file a regular civil suit for additional damages.