Compensation for violations of Article 21 is a public law remedy, essential for enforcing accountability and deterring state misconduct, distinct from private law remedies.

JUDGMENT

This case is about an untold misery of a father who returned to his motherland on a short leave of 15 days to conduct his daughter's marriage. During that period, he was implicated in a criminal case of chain snatching, arrested, and placed under judicial custody for a period of 54 days. This ordeal finally resulted in another 23 days of imprisonment in Qatar for failure to report for duty, and he also lost his job. Seeking compensation, he and his family members have filed this writ petition on the ground that his right to life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, was violated.

2. The writ petition is preferred by the victim, his wife, and their three children regarding the unfortunate incident as stated above. The petitioners' case is that the 1^st petitioner had been employed abroad for many years, working in an establishment dealing with 'rent-a-car' services. On June 25, 2018, he returned to his native place for a short leave of 15 days to conduct the marriage of the 4^th petitioner.

3. On 11.07.2018, on their way home from the 1^st petitioner’s sister's house, a police party led by the 2^nd respondent intercepted the petitioners' car at Kadirur, near their residence. The petitioners were asked to assist the police in lifting their jeep, which was stuck in the mud. They accordingly assisted in lifting the vehicle. However, the 1^st petitioner, who remained seated in the car due to back pain, was insisted by the police to come out. Despite the other petitioners' intimation that he was suffering from back pain, respondents 2 and 3 dragged him out of the car and forcefully took photographs of him on their mobile phones. Since this occurred around 1:13 a.m., an unusual hour, petitioners 2 to 4 questioned the respondents’ attempt. In response, respondents 2 and 3 openly declared that "he is a thief" and threatened the petitioners that if the 1^st petitioner did not confess the truth, he would be treated severely and face dire consequences. Later, they were all taken to the Chakkarakkal Police Station in the police vehicle during those early morning hours. When they reached the police station, the 2^nd respondent, with the assistance of respondents 3 and 4, took the petitioners inside and showed them CCTV footage of a bearded man. They then shouted at the petitioners, accusing the 1^st petitioner of having snatched a woman's gold chain while riding a white scooter at a place called Choorakkalam.

4. It is stated that the petitioners affirmatively denied the allegation. Although the petitioners questioned the intention of respondents 2 to 4 in attempting to implicate the 1^st petitioner in such a crime, the respondents compelled them to confess guilt without offering any explanation. The petitioners, however, pleaded not guilty, asserting that the 1^st petitioner was totally innocent, had never been involved in any case in his life, and was a person of good antecedents, belonging to a respectable family, and leading an unblemished life. Such pleadings were not heeded by respondents 2 to 4. Instead, they responded with abusive epithets and shouted at the 1^st petitioner, declaring, "You are a thief... a notorious thief." Later, it was informed that he would be implicated in a chain snatching case and arrested. The respondents even went to the extent of threatening the other petitioners that they too would be implicated in various criminal cases.

5. Despite the requests of the other petitioners, the arrest of