Public Law Compensation is Payable for Custodial Death Regardless of Pending Criminal Trial and Beyond Statutory Victim Schemes

On April 24, 2020, five gunmen in civil dress (later identified as police personnel) abducted the petitioner’s husband, Santosh Hojai, from his residence on the pretext of needing help with a vehicle.

Despite an FIR and a subsequent Suo-Moto writ petition by the High Court, Hojai’s half-burnt body was recovered on April 30, 2020, in a jungle area.

A CID investigation resulted in a charge sheet against eight accused, including a Superintendent of Police (SP) and a Deputy SP.

The charge sheet revealed that Hojai was tortured in custody at the SP’s office and a guest house, died in a police vehicle on April 25, 2020, and his body was buried by the officers to destroy evidence.

The petitioner, left with three minor children and significant business debt, sought a writ of mandamus for compensation of Rs. 50,00,000.

1. Whether the High Court can award monetary compensation under Article 226 for custodial death before the conclusion of the criminal trial.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under public law remedy is in addition to private law remedies and statutory victim compensation schemes.

3. What is the appropriate quantum of compensation considering the deceased’s age, income, and the nature of the state’s violation.

The court applied Article 21 of the Constitution, establishing that the right to life includes protection against custodial torture.

It relied on D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, which held that custodial death is a naked violation of human dignity and warrants compensation in public law.

The principle of strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights was derived from Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, distinguishing it from sovereign immunity.

The court utilized the "palliative" compensation doctrine from Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar.

For quantification, it considered the factors of age, income, and dependents as streamlined in Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Sarla Verma v. DTC.

The court found that the "ghastly" nature of the incident—involving a conspiracy to abduct, torture, and then bury the victim to conceal evidence—shook the judicial conscience.

It rejected the State’s argument that compensation must wait for the trial’s conclusion, noting that a charge sheet based on CID investigation sufficiently established a prima facie case of custodial death.

The court observed that the victim’s fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 were bypassed as he was never formally produced before a magistrate and was subjected to third-degree methods.

Applying the "palliative" approach, the court balanced the deceased's substantial financial liabilities (approx. Rs. 95 lakhs in loans) and the needs of his three minor children against the typical quantum awarded in similar constitutional tort cases.

Having already paid Rs. 5,00,000 as interim relief, the State was directed to pay the remaining Rs. 20,00,000 to the petitioner. The court clarified that this amount is "palliative" and does not preclude the petitioner from seeking further damages in civil court or receiving benefits under the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012. The State was granted liberty to recover the compensation amount from the erring officials if found guilty in the criminal trial.