Back
SANJIB BANERJEE, H. S. THANGKHIEW
In Re suo motu custodial violence & other matters relating to prison conditions – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of public interest litigation regarding custodial deaths. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details on custodial deaths and their classifications. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. natural vs. unnatural deaths in custody. (Para 6) |
| 4. state's contest regarding causes of deaths in custody. (Para 7 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. state's liability in custodial deaths. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 6. role of national human rights commission in compensation structure. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. critique of haryana's compensation model for custodial deaths. (Para 15 , 17) |
| 8. determination of compensation for custodial deaths. (Para 23 , 27 , 30) |
| 9. future implications and adjustments for compensation. (Para 26 , 29) |
| 10. closure of the case with no costs. (Para 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJIB BANERJEE, CJ.
1. This suo motu public interest litigation was initiated pursuant to a direction issued by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported at (2017) 10 SCC 658 (Re-Inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons).
2. Two aspects must be pointed out from the relevant judgment. The first is that a distinction was sought to be made by the National Crime Records Burea
The state is strictly liable for unnatural deaths in custody, necessitating compensation for the victim's family under Article 21 of the Constitution.
State is liable for failing to protect individuals in police custody, requiring compensation for unnatural deaths under Article 21.
The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety of individuals in police custody; custodial deaths demand scrutiny and compensatory measures for rights violations.
The court affirmed that custodial deaths necessitate compensation reflecting rights violations, applying Motor Vehicle Act standards for calculating damages.
Compensation for custodial death necessitates proof of unnatural death; not every death in custody qualifies under the compensation scheme.
The State is responsible for tortuous acts of its employees, and the award of compensation against the State is an appropriate remedy for the infringement of fundamental rights under Article 21 of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability for the negligence of the police in cases of custodial deaths, emphasizing the fundamental rights of prisoners an....
State authorities are vicariously liable for negligence leading to custodial death, with victims entitled to compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
