State Liable for Compensation for Delay in Releasing Convict After Judicial Order of Parole

The appellant was convicted under Sections 148, 448, 304 Part II r/w 149, and 323 of the IPC, receiving a four-year sentence.

After serving over three years, his application for permanent parole was initially rejected by the State, but subsequently allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court on 5th November 2024, subject to furnishing bonds.

Despite complying with the conditions and the verification of sureties being completed by 13th November 2024, the State did not release him.

The appellant was only released on 6th December 2024 following a Habeas Corpus petition before the Division Bench.

The appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking compensation for the 24 days of illegal detention between the release order/surety verification and his actual release.

1. Whether the continued detention of a convict after a judicial order of release on parole, pending administrative decisions or due to procedural delays, constitutes "illegal detention"

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to monetary compensation under public law for the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

The Court applied Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

It relied on the public law remedy for compensation established in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, which hold the State strictly liable for infringing indefeasible fundamental rights.

The Court also invoked the principle that judicial orders must be obeyed immediately regardless of a party's intent to appeal, as established in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. and Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah.

Reference was also made to Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966.

The Court reasoned that "illegal detention" occurs when deprivation of liberty lacks lawful authority or violates constitutional provisions.

The State’s argument that the underlying parole order was erroneous under the Rajasthan Parole Rules was rejected because the State failed to challenge the order in a timely manner; a judicial order remains binding until stayed or set aside.

The Court emphasized that once the Single Judge ordered the release and sureties were verified, the "due process" justifying detention ended.

The Bureaucratic delay in deciding whether to appeal cannot supersede an individual's liberty.

The Court noted that even a convict does not lose the protection of Article 21, and the 24-day delay, characterized by "administrative sclerosis," constituted a flagrant infringement of fundamental rights.

The Court granted the appeal and directed the State of Rajasthan to pay the appellant ₹11,00,000 (Eleven Lakhs) as compensation.

The Court held that the State must ensure its administrative processes do not negatively impact an individual who has secured a judicial order for liberty.