Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1098

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SHAMIMA JAHAN, JJ.
Smt. Joyanta Maibangsa, W/o Late Santosh Hojai – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C)/392 of 2024
Decided On : 03-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B. D. Das, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. Thaosen, Ms. R. Deka, Mr. H. K. Sarma.
For the Respondent: Mr. B. Goswami, Addl. A.G., Mr.R. Bora, Addl. Sr GA, Mr. P. Sarmah, Addl. Sr GA

Custodial death is a grave violation of Article 21, and Constitutional Courts may award monetary compensation under public law as a palliative for such human rights violations, independent of and prior to the conclusion of pending criminal trial proceedings against the responsible state functionaries.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22 - Custodial death - Right to life and liberty - Violation of fundamental rights - Liability of state functionaries. (Para 29)

(B) Public Law Remedy - Award of monetary compensation by Constitutional Courts - Such compensation is distinct from and in addition to private law remedies for torts and claims under criminal procedure - Compensation serves as a palliative for constitutional violations. (Paras 34, 37, 39, 40)

(C) Procedural Requirements - Award of compensation is not contingent upon the conclusion of criminal trials against offending officials - Writ jurisdiction may be invoked prior to the commencement or completion of criminal prosecution. (Paras 42, 43, 47)

Facts of the case:
An application was filed seeking compensatory relief for the custodial death of a spouse. Evidence indicated the victim was forcibly removed from his residence by security personnel, subjected to severe physical torture while in detention, and subsequently passed away, with attempts made to conceal the body and destroy evidence. The state authorities contended that no compensation should be granted until the conclusion of the pending criminal trial against the accused officials.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the custodial death was substantiated by the findings of investigation authorities and concluded that such acts represent a gross violation of fundamental rights. It ruled that the state is responsible for protecting individuals in its custody and that the pendency of criminal litigation does not bar the court from awarding immediate relief in public law.

Issues: Whether the custodial death of an individual constitutes a violation of fundamental rights; whether compensation can be awarded by a writ court during the pendency of criminal trial proceedings; and the methodology for determining the quantum of monetary relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Custodial death constitutes a serious perversion of the rule of law and a violation of the right to life. As a custodial death involves the misuse of official authority and the degradation of human dignity, the state bears strict liability. Constitutional courts must provide monetary redress as a palliative for such infringement, irrespective of the ongoing criminal trial, to vindicate constitutional values and ensure accountability.

Result: Petition allowed. The state is directed to pay monetary compensation of 20 lakhs in addition to the interim sum already provided, with liberty to recover the same from the guilty officials.

Table of Content
1. factual background: abduction, custodial torture, and subsequent death of the detainee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. parties argument: petitioner's claim for compensation versus state's contention regarding trial pendency and scheme limits. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. judicial recognition of custodial death based on evidence of police complicity and destruction of records. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. establishment of public law remedy for fundamental rights violation independent of private law tort claims. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
5. right to compensation and redressal is available despite the pendency of criminal trial. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
6. principles for assessment of quantum of compensation based on victim's age, vocation, and degree of suffering. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
7. awarding of palliative monetary compensation for custodial death and state's right to recover from officials. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)

JUDGMENT :

Shamima Jahan, J.

The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs) only, to the petitioner for death of her husband, namely, Santosh Hojai, who died during the period he was detained in Police custody in connection with Harangajao Police Station Case No. 3 of 2020, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of death till date. The petitioner has also prayed for an interim compensation for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) only, to which an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) only, was already given to the petitioner in the instant case.

FACTS:

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was a business man by profession and he was the owner of 5 (five) numbers of vehicles, such as, Tata 1618 Tipper bearing registration No. AS-11/CC-5903, one Mahindra Tipper, bearing registration No. AS-11/DC-3122, one JCB bearing registration No. MZ 05/A-4314, 1 JCB Excavator and one Bolero bearing registration No. AS-11/R 6576 which he had purchased on loan from Indusland Bank on a monthly installment amount against the said vehicles at Rs. 3,59,590/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety) only per month.

3. The petitioner states that while she along with her husband and her three minor children were living in their residence in village-Gamadi Hawar under Harangajau Police Station in the district of Dima Hasao, 5 (five) gunmen in civil dress, riding a White Bolero vehicle came to their residence on 24.04.2020, at around 6 pm and asked for the whereabouts of her husband expressing the reason that they need his help in lifting their Alto vehicle, which was stuck nearby and when her husband came out, the said personnel, who were later identified as Police personnel, forcefully picked him up and fled away in the said vehicle.

4. The petitioner, on seeing her husband being forcefully taken away, lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge, Harangajao Police Station on 24.04.2020 itself, alleging that her husband was kidnapped and the said case was registered as Harangajao Police Station Case No. 3/2020 under Section 365 IPC. However, it is stated that the Police did not initiate any action even after registration of the said case and further due to the ongoing COVID pandemic, the petitioner could not pursue the case nor could she find out her husband and as such, she submitted a letter on 28.04.2020, through e-mail, before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, with a prayer that the State Government/Central Government be directed to produce her husband before a Judicial Magistrate, Dima Hasao, as she had information that he was detained by security forc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1098

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)KALYAN RAI SURANA, SHAMIMA JAHAN, JJ.Smt. Joyanta Maibangsa, W/o Late Santosh Hojai – Petitioner VersusThe State Of Assam And Ors. - RespondentsWP(C)/392 of 2024Decided On : 03-06-2026

Cases Referred (11)

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SHAMIMA JAHAN, JJ.
Smt. Joyanta Maibangsa, W/o Late Santosh Hojai – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C)/392 of 2024
Decided On : 03-06-2026