Case ID: 7045

Judgment:
(Crl.) No. 488 of 1988. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). M.S. Ganesh for the Petitioner. Altaf Ahmed	 Addl. Solicitor General	 A.K. Panda and Naresh Kumar Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgments of the Court were delivered by VERMA	 J. A letter dated 14.9.1988 sent to this Court by Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera	 was treated as a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for determining the claim of compensation made therein consequent upon	 the death of petitioner 's son Suman Behera	 aged about 22 years	 in police custody. The said Suman Behera was taken from his home in police custody at about 8 a.m. on 1.12.1987 by respondent No.6	 Sarat Chandra Barik	 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of Jaraikela Police Outpost under Police Station Bisra	 Distt. Sundergarh in Orissa	 in connection with the investigation of an offence of theft and detained at the Police Outpost. At about 2 p.m. the next day on 2.12.1987	 the petitioner came to know that the dead body of her son Suman Behera was found on the railway track near a bridge at some distance from the Jaraikela railway station. There were multiple injuries on the body of Suman Behera when it was found and obviously his death was unnatural	 caused by those injuries. The allegation made is that it is a case of custodial death since Suman Behera died as a result of the multiple injuries inflicted to him while he was in police custody; and thereafter his dead body was thrown on the railway track. The prayer made in the petition is for award of compensation to the petitioner	 the mother of Suman Behera	 for contravention of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State of Orissa and its police officers	 including Sarat Chandra 590 Barik	 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and Constable No.127	 Chhabil Kujur of Police Outpost Jeraikela	 Police Station Bisra	 are impleaded as respondents in this petition. The defence of the respondents is that Suman Behera managed to escape from police custody at about 3 a.m. on the night between the 1st and 2nd December	 1987 from the Police Outpost Jeraikela	 where he was detained and guarded by Police Constable Chhabil Kujur; he could not be apprehended thereafter in spite of a search; and the dead body of Suman Behera was found on the railway track the next day with multiple injuries which indicated that he was run over by a passing train after he had escaped from police custody. In short	 on this basis the allegation of custodial death was denied and consequently the respondents ' responsibility for the unnatural death of Suman Behera. In view of the controversy relating to the cause of death of Suman Behera	 a direction was given by this Court on 4.3.1991 to the District Judge	 Sundergarh in Orissa	 to hold an inquiry into the matter and submit a report. The parties were directed to appear before the District Judge and lead the evidence on which they rely. Accordingly	 evidence was led by the parties and the District Judge has submitted the Inquiry Report dated 4.9.1991 containing his finding based on that evidence that Suman Behera had died on account of multiple injuries inflicted to him while he was in police custody at the Police Outpost Jeraikela. The correctness of this finding and Report of the District Judge	 being disputed by the respondents	 the matter was examined afresh by us in the light of the objections raised to the Inquiry Report. The admitted facts are	 that Suman Behera was taken in police custody on 1.12.1987 at 8 a.m. and he was found dead the next day on the railway track near the Police Outpost Jeraikela	 without being released from custody	 and his death was unnatural caused by multiple injuries sustained by him. The burden is	 therefore	 clearly on the respondents to explain how Suman Behera sustained those injuries which caused his death. Unless a plausible explanation is given by the respondents which is consistent with their innocence	 the obvious inference is that the fatal injuries were inflicted to Suman Behera in police custody resulting in his death	 for which the respondents are responsible and liable. To avoid this obvious and logical inference of custodial death	 the learned Additional Solicitor General relied on the respondent 's defence 591 that Suman Behera had managed to escape from police custody at about 3 a.m. on the night between the 1st and 2nd December	 1987 and it was likely that he was run over by a passing train when he sustained the fatal injuries. The evidence adduced by the respondents is relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General to support this defence and to contend that the responsibility of the respondents for the safety of Suman Behera came to an end the moment Suman Behera escaped from police custody. The learned Additional Solicitor General	 however	 rightly does not dispute the liability of the State for payment of compensation in this proceeding for violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21	 in case it is found to be a custodial death. The argument is that the factual foundation for such a liability of the State is absent. Shri M.S. Ganesh	 who appeared as amicus curiae for the petitioner	 however	 contended that the evidence adduced during the inquiry does not support the defence of respondents and there is no reason to reject the finding of the learned District Judge that Suman Behera died in police custody as a result of injuries inflicted to him. The first question is: Whether it is a case of custodial death as alleged by the petitioner? The admitted facts are: Suman Behera was taken in police custody at about 8 a.m. on 1.12.1987 by Sarat Chandra Barik	 Asstt. Sub Inspector of Police	 during investigation of an offence of theft in the village and was detained at Police Outpost Jeraikela; Suman Behera and Mahi Sethi	 another accused	 were handcuffed	 tied together and kept in custody at the police station; Suman Behera 's mother	 the petitioner	 and grand mother went to the Police Outpost at about 8 p.m. with food for Suman Behera which he ate and thereafter these women came away while Suman Behera continued to remain in police custody 	 Police Constable Chhabil Kujur and some other persons were present at the Police Outpost that night; and the dead body of Suman Behera with a handcuff and multiple injuries was found lying on the railway track at Kilometer No.385/29 between Jeraikela and Bhalulata railway stations on the morning of 2.12.1987. It is significant that there is no cogent independent evidence of any search made by the police to apprehend Suman Behera	 if the defence of his escape from police custody be true. On the contrary	 after discovery of the dead body on the railway track in the morning by some railwaymen	 it was much later in the day that the police reached the spot to take charge of the dead body. This conduct of the concerned police 592 officers is also a significant circumstance to assess credibility of the defence version. Before discussing the other evidence adduced by the parties during the. inquiry	 reference may be made to the injuries found on the dead body of Suman Behera during postmortem. These injuries were the following: "Extemal injuries (1) Laceration over with margin of damaged face. (2) Laceration of size 3" x 2" over the left temporal region upto bone. (3) Laceration 2 ' above mastoid process on the right side of size 1 1/2" x 1/4" bone exposed. (4) Laceration on the forehead left side of size 1 1/2" x 1/4" upto bone in the mid line on the forehead 1/2" x 1/4" bone deep on the left lateral to it 1" x 1/4" bone exposed. (5) Laceration 1" x 1/2" on the anterior aspect of middle of left arm	 fractured bone protruding. (6) Laceration 1" x 1/2" x V2" on medial aspect of left thigh 4" above the knee joint. (7) Laceration 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over left knee joint. (8) Laceration 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the medial aspect of right knee joint. (9) Laceration 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the posterior aspect of left leg	 4" below knee joint. (10) Laceration 1" ' x 1/4" x 1/2" on the plantar aspect of 3rd and 4th toe of right side. (11) Laceration of 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" on the dorsum of left foot. Injury on the neck 593 (1) Bruises of size 3" x 1" obliquely alongwith sternocleidomastoid muscle 1" above the clavical left side (2) lateral to this 2" x 1" bruise (3) and 1" x 1" above the clavial left side (4) posterial aspect of the neck 1" x 1 ' obliquely placed right to mid line. Right shoulder (a) Bruise 2" x 2"	 1" above the right scapula. (b) Bruise 1" x 1 ' on the tip of right shoulder. (c) Bruise on the dorsum of right palm 2" x 1". (d) Bruise extenses surface of forearm left side (e) Bruise on right elbow 4" x 1" (f) Bruise on the dorsum of left palm 2" x 1". (g) Bruise over left patela 2" x 1". (h) Bruise 1" above left patel 1" x 1". (i) Bruise on the right illiac spine 1" x 1/2". (j) Bruise over left scapula 4" x 1". (k) Bruise 1" below right scapula 5" x 1". (l) Bruise 3" medial to inferior angle of right scapula 2"x 1". (m) Bruise 2" below left scapula of size 4" x 2". (n) Bruise 2" x 6" below 12th rib left side. (o) Bruise 4" x 2" on the left lumber region. (p) Bruise on the buttock of left side 3" x 2". (q) On dissection found (l) Fracture of skull on right side parietal and occipital bone 6" length. 594 (2) Fracture of frontal bone below laceration 2" depressed fracture. (3) Fracture of left temporal bone 2" in length below external injury No.2 i.e. laceration 2" above left mastoid process. (4) Membrane ruptured below depressed fracture	 brain matter protruding through the membrane. (5) Intracraneal haemorrhage present. (6) Brain lacerated below external injury No.3	 1" x 1/2" x 1/2". (7) Bone chips present on temporal surface of both sides. (8) Fracture of left humerous 3 ' above elbow. (9) Fracture of left femur 3" above knee joint. (10) Fracture of mendible at the angle mendible both sides. (11) Fracture of maxillary. The face was completely damaged	 eye ball present	 nose lips	 cheeks absent. Maxila and a portion of mendible absent. No injury was present on the front side of body trunk. There is rupture and laceration of brain. " The doctor deposed that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object the injuries on the face and left temporal region were postmortem while the rest were ante mortem. The doctor excluded the possibility of the injuries resulting from dragging of the body by a running train and stated that all the ante mortem injuries could be caused by lathi blows. It was further stated by the doctor that while all the injuries could not be caused in a train accident	 it was possible to cause all the injuries by lathi blows. Thus	 the medical evidence comprising the testimony of the doctor	 who conducted the postmortem	 excludes the possibility of all the injuries 595 to Suman Behera being caused in a train accident while indicating that all of them could result form the merciless beating given to him. The learned Additional Solicitor General placed strong reliance ore the written opinion of Dr. K.K. Mishra	 Professor & Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine	 Medical College	 Cuttack	 given on 15.2.1988 on a reference made to him wherein he stated on the basis of the documents that the injuries found on the dead body of Suman Behera could have been caused by rolling on the railway track in between the rail and by coming into forceful contact with projecting part of the moving train/engine. While adding that it did not appear to be a case of suicide	 he indicated that there was more likelihood of accidental fall on the railway track followed by the running engine/train. In our view	 the opinion of Dr. K.K. Mishra	 not examined as a witness	 is not of much assistance and does not reduce the weight of the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem and deposed as a witness during the inquiry. The opinion of Dr. K.K. Mishra is cryptic	 based on conjectures for which there is no basis	 and says nothing about the injuries being both anti mortem and post mortem. We have no hesitation in reaching this conclusion and preferring the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem. We may also refer to the Report dated 19.12.1988 containing the findings in a joint inquiry conducted by the Executive Magistrate and the Circle Inspector of Police. This Report is stated to have been made under Section 176 Cr. P.C. and was strongly relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General as a statutory report relating to the cause of death. In the first place	 an inquiry under Section 176 Cr. P.C. is contemplated independently by a Magistrate and not jointly with a police officer when the role of the police officers itself is a matter of inquiry. The joint finding recorded is that Suman Behera escaped from police custody at about 3 a.m. on 2.12.1987 and died in a train accident as a result of injuries sustained therein. There was hand cuff on the hands of the deceased when his body was found on the railway track with rope around it. It is significant that the Report dated 11.3.1988 of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (Annexure 'R 8 '	 at p. 108 of the paper book) mentions that the two cut ends of the two pieces of rope which were sent for examination do not match with each other in respect of physical appearance. This finding about the rope negatives the respondents ' suggestion that Suman Behera managed to escape from police custody by chewing off the rope with which he was tied. It is no necessary for us to refer to the other evidence including 596 the oral evidence adduced during the inquiry	 from which the learned District Judge reached the conclusion that it is a case of custodial death and Suman Behera died as a result of the injuries inflicted to him voluntarily while he was in police custody at the Police Outpost Jeraikela. We have reached the same conclusion on a reappraisal of the evidence adduced at the inquiry taking into account the circumstances	 which also support that conclusion. This was done in view of the vehemence with which the learned Additional Solicitor General urged that it is not a case of custodial death but of death of Suman Behera caused by injuries sustained by him in a train accident	 after he had managed to escape from police custody by chewing off the rope with which he had been tied for being detained at the Police Outpost. On this conclusion	 the question now is of the liability of the respondents for compensation to Suman Behera 's mother	 the petitioner	 for Suman Behera 's custodial death. In view of the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar and Another	 ; 	 Sebastian M. Hongray vs Union of India and Others	 ; and ; 	 Bhim Singh vs State of J&K [1984] Supp. S.C.C. 504 and 	 Saheli	 A Women 's Resources Centre and Others vs Commissioner of Police	 Delhi Police Headquarters and Others	 ; and State of Maharashtra and Others vs Ravikant S.Patil	 	 the liability of the State of Orissa in the present case to pay the compensation cannot be doubted and was rightly not disputed by the learned Additional Solicitor General. It 	would	 however	 be appropriate to spell out clearly the principle on which the liability of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between this liability and the liability in private law for payment of compensation in an action on tort. It may be mentioned straightaway that award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by this court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law	 based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply	 even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. This is a distinction between the two remedies to be borne in mind which also indicates the basis on which compensation is awarded in such proceedings. We shall now refer to the earlier decisions of this Court as well as some other decisions before further discussion of this principle. 597 In Rudul Sah (supra)	 it was held that in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution	 this Court can grant compensation for deprivation of a fundamental right. That was a case of violation of the petitioner 's right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Chandrachud	 C.J.	 dealing with this aspect	 stated as under: "It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced effecaciously through the ordinary processes of Courts	 Civil and Criminal A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it. But the important question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under article 32	 this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right. The instant case is illustrative of such cases. . ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was factually controversial	 in the sense that a civil court may or may not have upheld his claim. But we have no doubt that if the petitioner files a suit to recover damages for his illegal detention	 a decree for damages would have to be passed in that suit	 though it is not possible to predicate	 in the absence of evidence	 the precise amount which would be decreed in his favour. In these circumstances	 the refusal of this Court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21 'which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders to release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured	 is to mulct its violaters in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis lead 598 ing to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the state as shield. If Civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention	 it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that	 respect for the rights of in dividuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore	 the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner 's rights. It may have recourse against those officers" (pp.513 14) (emphasis supplied) It does appear from the above extract that even though it was held that compensation could be awarded under Article 32 for contravention of a fundamental right	 yet it was also stated that 'the petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was factually controversial ' and 'Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes '. These observation may tend to raise a doubt that the remedy under Article 32 could be denied 'if the claim to compensation was factually controversial ' and	 therefore	 optional not being a distinct remedy available to the petitioner in addition to the ordinary processes. The later decisions of this Court proceed on the assumption that monetary compensation can be awarded for violation of constitutional rights under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution	 but this aspect has not been adverted to. It is	 therefore	 necessary to clear this doubt and to indicate the precise nature of this remedy which is distinct and in addition to the available ordinary processes	 in case of violation of the fundamental rights. Reference may also be made to the other decisions of this Court after Rudul Sah. In Sebastian M. Hongray vs Union of India and Others	 (1); 	 	 it was indicated that in a petition for writ of habeas 599 corpus	 the burden was obviously on the respondents to make good the positive stand of the respondents in response to the notice issued by the court by offering proof of the stand taken	 when it is shown that the person detained was last seen alive under the surveillance	 control	 and command of the detaining authority. In Sebastian M. Hongray vs Union of India & Ors.	 (11); 	 	 in such a writ petition	 exemplary costs were awarded on failure of the detaining authority to produce the missing persons	 on the conclusion that they were not alive and had met an unnatural death. The award was made in Sebastian M. Hongray II apparently following Rudul Sah	 but without indicating anything more. In Bhim Singh vs State of J&K and Others	 	 illegal detention in police custody of the petitioner Bhim Singh was held to constitute violation of his rights under Articles 21 and 22(2) and this Court exercising its power to award compensation under Article 32 directed the State to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner for violation of his constitutional right by way of exemplary costs or otherwise	 taking this power to be settled by the decisions in Rudul Sah and Sebastian M. Hongray. In Saheli	 ; 	 the State was held liable to pay compensation payable to the mother of the deceased who died as a result of beating and assault by the police. However	 the principle indicated therein was that the State is responsible for the tortious acts of its employees. In State of Maharashtra and Others vs Ravikant section Patil	 	 the award of compensation by the High Court for violation of the fundamental right under Article 21 of an undertrial prisoner	 who was handcuffed and taken through the streets in a procession by the police during investigation	 was upheld. However	 in none of these cases	 except Rudul Sah	 anything more was said. In Saheli	 reference was made to the State 's liability for tortious acts of its servants without any reference being made to the decision of this Court in Kasturilal Ralia Ram fain vs The State of Uttar Pradesh; 	 	 wherein sovereign immunity was upheld in the case of vicarious liability of the State for the tort of its employees. The decision in Saheli is	 therefore	 more in accord with the principle indicated in Rudul Sah. In this context	 it is sufficient to say that the decision of this Court in Kasturilal upholding the State 's plea of sovereign immunity for tortious acts of its servants is confined to the sphere of liability in tort	 which is distinct from the State 's liability for contravention of fundamental rights to 600 which the doctrine of sovereign immunity has no application in the constitutional scheme	 and is no defence to the constitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution which enables award of compensation for contravention of fundamental rights	 when the only practicable mode of enforcement of the fundamental rights can be the award of compensation. The decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah and others in that line relate to award of compensation for contravention of fundamental rights	 in the constitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. On the other hand	 Kasturilal related to value of goods seized and not returned to he owner due to the fault of Government servants	 the claim being of damages for the tort of conversion under the ordinary process	 and not a claim for compensation for violation of fundamental rights. Kasturilal is	 therefore	 inapplicable in this context and distinguishable The decision of Privy Council in Maharaj vs 'Attomey General of Trinidad and Tobago	 (No.2)	 	 is useful in this context. That case related to Section 6 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago 1962	 in the chapter pertaining to human rights and fundamental freedoms	 wherein Section 6 provided for an application to the High Court for redress. The question was	 whether the provision permitted an order for monetary compensation. The contention of the Attorney General therein	 that an order for payment of compensation did not amount to the enforcement of the rights that had been contravened	 was expressly rejected. It was held	 that an order for payment of compensation	 when a right protected had been contravened	 is clearly a form of 'redress ' which a person is entitled to claim under Section 6	 and may well be the 'only practicable form of redress '. Lord Diplock who delivered the majority opinion	 at page 679	 stated.: "It was argued on behalf of the Attorney General that s.6(2) does not permit of an order for monetary compensation despite the fact that this kind of redress was ordered in Jaundoo vs Attorney General of Guyana	 Reliance was placed on the reference in the subsection to 'enforcing	 or securing the enforcement of	 any of the provisions of the said foregoing sections ' as the purpose for which orders etc. could be made. An order for payment of compensation	 it was submitted	 did not 601 amount to the enforcement of the rights that had been contravened. In their Lordships ' view an order for payment of compensation when a right protected under s.1 'has been ' contravened is dearly a form of 'redress ' which a person is entitled to claim under section 6(1) and may well be the only practicable form of redress	 as by now it is in the instant case. The jurisdiction to make such an order is conferred on the High Court by para (a) of s.6(2)	 viz. jurisdiction 'to hear and determine any application made by any person in pursuance of sub section (1) of this section. The very wide powers to make orders	 issue writs and give directions are to this. ' Lord Diplock further stated at page 680	 as under: "Finally	 their Lordships would say something about the measure of monetary compensation recoverable under s.6 where the contravention of the claimant 's constitutional rights consists of deprivation of liberty otherwise than by due process of law. The claim is not a claim in private law for damages for the tort of false imprisonment under which the damages recoverable are at would include damages for loss of reputation. It is a claim in public law for compensation for deprivation of liberty alone . (emphasis supplied) Lord Hailsham while dissenting from the majority regarding the liability for compensation in that case	 concurred with the majority opinion on this principle and stated at page 687	 thus: expression 'redress ' in sub s(1) of s.6 and the expression 'enforcement ' in sub s(2)	 although capable of embracing damages where damages are available as part of the legal consequences of contravention	 do not confer and are not in the context capable of being construed so as to confer a right of damages where they have not hitherto been available	 in this case against the state for the judicial errors of a judge. " 602 Thus	 on this principle	 the view was unanimous	 that enforcement of the constitutional right and grant of redress embraces award of compensation as part of the legal consequences of its contravention. It follows that 'a claim in public law for compensation ' for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms	 the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution	 is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights	 and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is 'distinct from	 and in addition to	 the remedy in private law for damages for the tort ' resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inap plicable	 and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights	 there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution	 when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers	 and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution	 for contravention of fundamental rights. A useful discussion on this topic which brings out the distinction between the remedy in public law based on strict liability for violation of a fundamental right enabling award of compensation	 to which the defence of sovereign immunity is inapplicable	 and the private law remedy	 wherein vicarious liability of the State in tort may arise	 is to be found in Ratanlal & Dhirajlal 's Law of Torts	 22nd Edition	 1992	 by Justice G.P. Singh	 at pages 44 to 48. This view finds support from the	 decisions of this Court in the Bhagalpur blinding cases: Kharti and Others (II) vs State of Bihar and Others	 ; and Kharti and Other (TV) vs State of Bihar and Others	 [1981] 2 S.C.C. 493	 wherein it was said that the court is not helpless to grant relief in a case of violation of the right to life and personal liberty	 and it should be prepared to forge new tools and devise new remedies ' for 603 the purpose of vindicating these precious fundamental rights. It was also indicated that the procedure suitable in the facts of the case must be adopted for conducting the inquiry	 needed to ascertain the necessary facts	 for granting the relief	 as the available mode of redress	 for enforcement of the guaranteed fundamental rights. More recently in Union Carbide Corporation and Others vs Union of India and Others	 ; 	 Misra	 C.J. stated that 'we have to develop our own law and if we find that it is necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future. there is no reason why we should hesitate to evolve such principle of liability . . To the same effect are the observations of Venkatachaliah	 J. (as he then was)	 who rendered the leading judgment in the Bhopal gas case	 with regard to the court 's power to grant relief. We respectfully concur with the view that. the court is not helpless and the wide powers given to this Court by Article 32	 which itself is a fundamental right	 imposes a constitutional obligation on this Court to forge such new tools	 which may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution	 which enable the award of monetary compensation in appropriate cases	 where that is the only mode of redress available. The power available to this Court under Article 142 is also an enabling provision in this behalf The contrary view would not merely render the court powerless and the constitutional guarantee a mirage but may	 in certain situations	 be an incentive to extinguish life	 if for the extreme contravention the court is powerless to grant any relief against the State	 except by punishment of the wrongdoer for the resulting offence	 and recovery of damages under private law	 by the ordinary process. It the guarantee that deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be made except in accordance with law	 is to be real	 the enforcement of the right in case of every contravention must also be possible in the constitutional scheme	 the mode of redress being that which is appropriate in the facts of each case. This remedy in public law has to be more readily available when invoked by the have not	 who are not possessed of the wherewithal for enforcement of their rights in private law	 even though its exercise is to be tempered by judicial restraint to avoid circumvention of private law remedies	 where more appropriate. We may also refer to Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights	 1966 which indicates that an enforceable right to 604 compensation is not alien to the concept of enforcement of a guaranteed right. Article 9(5) reads as under: "Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation. " The above discussion indicates the principles on which the Court 's power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is exercised to award monetary compensation for contravention of a fundamental right. This was indicated in Rudul Sah and certain further observations therein adverted to earlier	 which may tend to minimise the effect of the principle indicated therein	 do not really detract from that principle. This is how the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah and others in that line have to be understood and Kasturilal distinguished therefrom. We have considered this question at some length in view of the doubt raised	 at times	 about the propriety of awarding compensation in such proceedings	 instead of directing the claimant to resort to the ordinary process of recovery of damages by recourse to an action in tort. In the present case	 on the finding reached	 it is a clear case for award of compensation to the petitioner for the custodial death of her son. The question now	 is of the quantum of compensation. The deceased Suman Behera was aged about 22 years and had a monthly income between Rs.1200 to Rs.1500. This is the finding based on evidence recorded by the District Judge	 and there is no reason to doubt its correctness. In our opinion	 a total amount of Rs.1	50	000 would be appropriate as compensation	 to be awarded to the petitioner in the present case. We may	 however	 observe that the award of compensation in this proceeding would be taken into account for adjustment	 in the event of any other proceeding taken by the petitioner for recovery of compensation on the same ground	 so that the amount to this extent is not recovered by the petitioner twice over. Apart from the fact that such an order is just	 it is also in consonance with the statutory recognition of this principle of adjustment provided in Section 357(5) Cr. P.C. and Section 141(3) of the . Accordingly	 we direct the respondent State of Orissa to pay the sum of Rs.1	50	000 to the petitioner and a further sum of Rs.10	000 as to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The mode of payment of Rs.1	50	000 to the petitioner would be	 by making a term 605 deposit of that amount in a scheduled bank in the petitioner 's name for a period of three years	 during which she would receive only the interest payable thereon	 the principal amount being payable to her on expiry of the term. The Collector of the District will take the necessary steps in this behalf	 and report compliance to. the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within three months. We clarify that the award of this compensation	 apart from the direction for adjustment of the amount as indicated	 will not affect any other liability of the respondents or any other person flowing from the custodial death of petitioner 's son Suman Behera. We also expect that the State of Orissa would take the necessary further action in this behalf	 to ascertain and fix the responsibility of the individuals responsible for the custodial death of Suman Behera	 and also take all available appropriate actions against each of them	 including their prosecution for the offence committed thereby. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. ANAND	 J. (CONCURRING) The lucid and elaborate judgment recorded by my learned brother Verma J. obviates the necessity of noticing facts or reviewing the case law referred to by him. I would	 however	 like to record a few observations of my own while concurring with his Lordship 's judgment. This Court was bestirred by the unfortunate mother of deceased Suman Behera through a letter dated 14.9.1988	 bringing to the notice of the Court the death of her son while in police custody. The letter was treated as a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. As noticed by Brother Verma J.	 an inquiry was got conducted by this Court through the District Judge Sundergarh who	 after recording the evidence	 submitted his inquiry report containing the finding that the deceased Suman Behera had died on account of multiple injuries inflicted on him while in police custody. Considering	 that it was alleged to be a case of custodial death	 at the hands of those who are supposed to protect the life and liberty of the citizen	 and which if established was enough to lower the flag of civilization to fly half mast	 the report of the District Judge was scrutinized and analysed by us with the assistance of Mr. M.S. Ganesh	 appearing amicus 606 curiae for the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and Mr. Altaf Ahmad	 the learned Additional Solicitor General carefully. Verma J.	 while dealing with the first question i.e. whether it was a case of custodial death	 has referred to the evidence and the circumstances of the case as also the stand taken by the State about the manner in which injuries were caused and has come to the conclusion that the case put up by the police of the alleged escape of Suman Behera from police custody and his sustaining the injuries in a train accident was not acceptable. I respectfully agree. A strenuous effort was made by the learned Additional Solicitor General by reference to the injuries on the head and the face of the deceased to urge that those injuries could not be possible by the alleged police torture and the finding recorded by the District Judge in his report to the contrary was erroneous. It was urged on behalf of the State that the medical evidence did establish that the injuries had been caused to the deceased by lathi blows but it was asserted that the nature of injuries on the face and left temporal region could not have been caused by the lathis and	 therefore	 the death had occurred in the manner suggested by the police in a train accident and that it was not caused by the police while the deceased was in their custody. In this connection	 it would suffice to notice that the Doctor	 who conducted the postmortem examination	 excluded the possibility of the injuries to Suman Behera being caused in a train accident. The injuries on the face and the left temporal region were found to be post mortem injuries while the rest were ante mortem. This aspect of the medical evidence would go to show that after inflicting other injuries	 which resulted in the death of Suman Behera	 the police with a view to cover up their crime threw the body on the rail track and the injuries on the face and left temporal region were received by the deceased after he had died. This aspect further exposes not only the barbaric attitude of the police but also its crude attempt to fabricate false clues and create false evidence with a view to screen its offence. The falsity of the claim of escape stands also exposed by the report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory dated 11.3.1988 (Annexure R 8) which mentions that the two pieces of rope sent for examination to it	 did not tally in respect of physical appearance	 thereby belying the police case that the deceased escaped from the police custody by chewing the rope. The theory of escape has	 thus	 been rightly disbelieved and I agree with the view of Brother Verma J. that the death of Suman Behera was caused while he was in custody of the police by police torture. A custodial death is perhaps one of the worst 607 crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rule of Law. It is not our concern at this stage	 however	 to determine as to which police officer or officers were responsible for the torture and ultimately the death of Suman Behera. That is a matter which shall have to be decided by the competent court. I respectfully agree with the directions given to the State by Brother Verma	 J. in this behalf. On basis of the above conclusion	 we have now to examine whether to seek the right of redressal under Article 32 of the Constitution	 which is without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which way be lawfully available	 extends merely to a declaration that there has been contravention and infringement of the guaranteed fundamental rights and rest content at that by relegating the party to seek relief through civil and criminal proceedings or can it go further and grant redress also by the only practicable form of redress by awarding monetary damages for the infraction of the right to life. It is exiomatic that convicts	 prisoners or under trials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions	 as are permitted by law	 which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons. It is an obligation of the State	 to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life	 except in accordance with law while the citizen is in its custody. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts	 under trials or other prisoners in custody	 except according to procedure established by law. There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life. His liberty is in the very nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his interest in the limited liberty left to him is rather precious. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exceptions. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law. I agree with Brother Verma	 J. that the defence of "sovereign immunity ' in such cases is not available to the State and in fairness to Mr. Altaf Ahmed it may be recorded that he raised no such defence either. 608 Adverting to the grant of relief to the heirs of a victim of custodial death for the infraction or invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India	 it is not always enough to relegate him to .the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortuous act of the State as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to fife	 he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have	 therefore	 to evolve 'new tools ' to give relief in public law by molding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law. While concluding his first Hamlyn Lecture in 1949 under the title 'Freedom under the Law ' Lord Denning in his own style warned: "No one can suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do: and will not do things that they ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient	 our procedure for preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal	 so also the procedure of mandamus	 certiorari	 and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age. They must be replaced by new and up to date machinery	 by declarations	 injunctions and actions for negligence. This is not the task for Parliament. . the courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive lead to the welfare state; but abused they lead to a totalitarian state. None such must ever be allowed in this Country. " The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the courts too much as protector and guarantor of the indefeasible Fights of the citizens. The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts 609 and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation	 as exemplary damages	 in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts	 for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore	 when the court molds the relief by granting "compensation" in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights	 it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood	 as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends ' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty	 of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of exempellary damages ' awarded against the wrong doer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort	 through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and persecute the offender under the penal law. This Court and the High Courts	 being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen	 have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers.to the fundamental rights of the citizen	 notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State	 of course has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. Of 610 course	 relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case	 is possible. The decisions of this Court in the line of cases starting with Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar and Anr.	 ; granted monetary relief to the victims for deprivation of their fundamental rights in proceedings through petitions filed under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India	 notwithstanding the rights available under the civil law to the aggrieved party where the courts found that grant of such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the Courts have molded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly particularly where the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles apply And the courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self restraint	 lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law. Some of those situations have been identified by this Court in the cases referred to by Brother Verma	 J. In the facts of the present case on the findings already recorded	 the mode of redress which commends appropriate is to make an order of monetary amend in favour of the petitioner for the custodial death of her son by ordering payment of compensation by way of exemplary damages. For the reasons recorded by Brother Verma	 J.	 I agree that the State of Orissa should pay a sum of Rs.1	50	000 to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.10	000 by way of costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Board. I concur with the view expressed by Brother Verma	 J. and the directions given by him in the judgment in all respects. V.P.R. Petition allowed.

Summary:
Petitioner 's son	 aged about 22 years was taken from his home In police custody at about 8 a.m. on 1.12.1987 by respondent No.6	 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of the Police Outpost in connection with the investigation of an offence of theft. He was detained at the Police outpost On 2.12.1987	 at about 2 p.m. the petitioner came to know that the dead body of her son was found on the railway track There were multiple injuries on the body and his death was unnatural	 caused by those injuries. The petitioner alleged in her letter dated 14.9.1988	 which was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution	 that it was a case of custodial death since her son died as a result of the multiple injuries inflicted to him while he was in police custody and thereafter his dead body was thrown on the railway track. It was prayed in the petition that award of compensation be made to her	 for contravention of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The defence of the respondents was that petitioner 's son managed to 582 escape from police custody at about 3 a.m. on 2.12.1987 from the Police. Outpost	 where he was detained; that thereafter he could not be apprehended in spite of a search and that his dead body was found on the railway track on 2.12.1987 with multiple injuries	 which indicated that he was run over by a train. The respondents denied the allegation of custodial death and their responsibility for the unnatural death of petitioner 's son. On 4.3.1991	 this Court directed the District Judge to hold an inquiry into the matter and to submit a report. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence the District Judge submitted the Inquiry Report dated 4.9.1991. The District Judge found that petitioner 's son died on account of multiple injuries inflicted to him while he was in police custody at the Police Outpost. The correctness of the finding of the District Judge in his report was assailed in this Court. The respondents contended that petitioner 's son managed to escape from police custody at about 3 a.m. on 2.12.1987; that he was run over by a passing train and sustained the fatal injuries; that the responsibility of the respondents for his safety came to an end the moment he escaped from police custody; and that the factual foundation for State 's liability for payment of compensation for violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 was absent. Allowing the petition	 this Court	 HELD: (per LS. Verma	 J. on his behalf and on behalf of N. Venkatachala	 J) 1.01. There is no cogent independent evidence of any search made by the police to apprehend petitioner 's son	 if the defence of his escape from police custody be true. On the contrary	 after discovery of the dead body on the railway track in the morning by some railwaymen	 it was much later in the day that the police reached the spot to take charge of the dead body. This conduct of the concerned police officers is also a significant circumstance to assess credibility of the defence version. [591 G H] 1.02. The medical evidence comprising the testimony of the doctor	 who conducted the postmortem	 excludes the possibility of all the injuries to the deceased being caused in a train accident while indicating that all of 583 them could result from the merciless beating given to him. [594 H 595 A] 1.03. An inquiry under Section 176 Cr. P.C. is contemplated independently by a Magistrate and not jointly with a police officer when the role of the police officers itself is a matter of inquiry. There was hand cuff on the hands of the deceased when his body was found on the railway track with rope around it. It is significant that the Report dated 11.3.1988 of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory mentions that the two cut ends of the two pieces of rope which were sent for examination do not match with each other in respect of physical appearance. This finding about the rope negatives the respondents ' suggestion that the petitioner 's son managed to escape from police custody by chewing off the rope with which he was tied. 1595 G H] 1.05. It is a case of custodial death	 and the deceased died as a result of the injuries inflicted to him voluntarily while he was In police custody at the Police Outpost. [596 A] 2.01. Award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by this Court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law	 based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply	 even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. This is a distinction between the two remedies to be borne in mind which also indicates the basis on which compensation is awarded in such proceedings. [596 G] 2.02. Enforcement of the constitutional right and grant of redress embraces award of compensation as part of the legal consequences of its contravention. [602 A] 2.03. A claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms	 the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution	 is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection	 of such rights	 and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is distinct from	 and in addition to	 the remedy in private law for damages for the tort resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity 584 being inapplicable	 and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights	 there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaran teed by the Constitution	 when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers	 and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. [602 B D] 2.04. The Court is not helpless and the wide powers given to this Court by Article 32	 which itself is a fundamental right	 imposes a constitutional obligation on this Court to forge such new tools	 which may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution	 which enable the award of monetary compensation In appropriate cases	 where that is the only mode of redress available. [603 D] 2.05. The power available to this Court under Article 142 is also an enabling provision in this behalf The contrary view would not merely render the court powerless and the constitutional guarantee a mirage	 but	 may	 in certain situations	 be an incentive to extinguish life	 if for the extreme contravention the court is powerless to grant any relief against the State	 except by punishment of the wrongdoer for the resulting offence	 and recovery of damages under private law	 by the ordinary process. [603 E F] 2.06. If the guarantee that deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be made except in accordance with law	 is to be real	 the enforcement of the right in case of every contravention must also be possible in the constitutional scheme	 the mode of redress being that which is appropriate In the facts of each case. This remedy in public law has to be more readily available when invoked by the havenots	 who are not possessed of the wherewithal for enforcement of their rights in private law	 even though its exercise is to be tempered by judicial restraint to avoid circumvention of private law remedies	 where more appropriate. [603 G] 2.08. The principle of which the Court 's power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is exercised to award monetary compensation for 585 contravention of a fundamental right. [604 B] Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar and Another	 [1983] 3 S.C.R. 508; Sebastian M. Hongray vs Union of India and Others	 ; and ; ; Bhim Singh vs State of J. & K	 [1984] Supp. S.C.C. 504 and ; Saheli	 A Women 's Resources Centre and Others vs Commissioner of Police	 Delhi Police Headquarters and Others	 ; ; State of Maharashtra and Others vs Ravikant section Patil	 ; Maharaj vs Attomey General of Trinidad and Tobago	 (No.2)	 ;	 Khatri and Others (IV) vs State of Bihar and Others	 and Union Carbide Corporation and Others vs Union India and Others	 ; 	 referred to. Kasturilal Ralia Rain Jain vs The State of Uttar Pradesh ; 	 distinguished. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal 's Law of Torts	 22nd Edition	 1992	 by Justice G.P. Singh	 at pages 44 to 48	 referred to. In the present case	 on the finding reached	 It Is a clear case for award of compensation to the petitioner for the custodial death of her son. [604 D] 2.10. The deceased was aged about 22 years and had a monthly income between Rs.1200 to Rs.1500. A total amount of Rs.1	50	000 would be appropriate as compensation	 to be awarded to the petitioner in the present case. [604 E] 2.11. The respondent State of Orissa is directed to pay the sum of Rs.1	50	000 lo the petitioner as compensation and a further sum of Rs.10	000 as costs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The mode of payment of Rs.1	50	000 to the petitioner would be	 by making a term deposit of that amount in a scheduled bank in the petitioner 's name for a period of three years	 during which she would receive only the Interest payable thereon	 the principal amount being payable to her on expiry of the term. The Collector of the District will take the necessary steps in this behalf	 and report compliance to the Register (judicial) of this Court within three months. [604 H	 605 A] 2.12.The State of Orissa is expected to take the necessary further action to ascertain and fix the responsibility of the Individuals responsible 586 for the custodial death of petitioner 's son and also take all available appropriate actions against each of them. [605 C] Per Dr. A.S. Anand	 J. (Concurring) 1.01. Convicts	 prisoners or under trials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and It is only such restrictions	 as are permitted by law	 which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental rights by such persons. It is an obligation of the State	 to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasable rights of a citizen to life	 except in accordance with law while the citizen is in its custody. [607 E] 1.02. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts	 under trials or other prisoners in custody	 except according to procedure established by law. [607 E] 1.03. There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life. His liberty is in the very nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his interest in the limited liberty left to him is rather precious. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exceptions. wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law. [607 G] 1.05.The death of petitioner 's son was caused while he was in custody of the police by police torture. A custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rule of Law. The defence of 'sovereign immunity"in such cases is not available to the State. [607 G] 2.01. Adverting to the grant of relief to the heirs of a victim of custodial death foe the infraction or invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India	 it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. [608 A] 587 2.02. The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasable right under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life	 he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts exercising writ jurisdiction. [608 B] 2.03. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have	 therefore	 to evolve 'new tools ' to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law. [608 C] 2.04. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the courts too much as protector and guarantor of the indefeasable rights of the citizens. The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. [608 H	 609 A] 2.05. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation	 as exemplary damages	 in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts	 for established infringement of the indefeasable right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasable rights of the citizen. [609 B] 2.06. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore	 which the court moulds the relief by granting" compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights	 it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. 1609 C] 2.07. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood	 as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends ' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty	 of not protecting the fundamental rights 588 of the citizen. [609 D] 2.08.The compensation is in the nature of the exemplary damages ' awarded against the wrong doer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort	 through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law. [609 E] 2.09. This Court and the High Courts	 being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen	 have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen	 notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. [609 F G] 2.10. The State	 of course	 has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceeding. Of course	 relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case	 is possible. [609 H	 610 A] 2.11. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles 'apply and the courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self restraint	 lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law. [610 D E] "Freedom under the Law. By Lord Denning First Hamlan Lecture	 1949	 referred to. Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar and Anr.	 ; 	 referred to. In the facts of the present case the mode of redress which 589 commends appropriate is to make an order of monetary amend	 in favour of the petitioner for the custodial death of her son by ordering payment of compensation by way of exemplary damages. The State of Orissa should pay a sum of Rs.1	50	000 to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.10	000 by way of costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. [610 G]