Compensation Claims for Statutory Lapses Not Maintainable Under Article 226: Madhya Pradesh High Court

In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of judicial review, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has reiterated that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum to claim compensation for alleged lapses by state authorities or police personnel.

The Backdrop: A Plea for Redressal

The petitioners, Nein Singh Dhurve and another, had approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel state authorities to provide compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs each. The claim stemmed from their acquittal in a criminal case (CRA-306/2024), with the petitioners further seeking strict departmental action against the investigating officer and involved police personnel for alleged misconduct.

The petitioners argued that their constitutional rights under Article 21 had been violated and that they were entitled to monetary remediation for the hardships faced during the criminal proceedings.

The Legal Barrier

The respondent State, represented by Shri Alok Agnihotri, opposed the maintainability of the petition. The court observed that the petitioners failed to cite any legal provision that establishes a right to claim such compensation specifically through a writ jurisdiction.

Justice Vishal Mishra, presiding over the matter, relied on established judicial precedents, noting that while courts act to protect fundamental rights, the Writ Court is not a venue for litigating broad claims for monetary damages arising from statutory or procedural lapses.

Judicial Analysis and Precedents

Drawing from the law laid down in Rasul Khan vs. State of M.P. , the court emphasized that public law remedies are generally reserved for instances of "constitutional torts"—serious, flagrant violations of fundamental rights.

The court noted that in matters involving complex facts and claims for civil damages, the writ jurisdiction is limited. Citing the Supreme Court’s stance in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphar Tragedy Victims Association , the High Court highlighted that while constitutional courts have the power to award compensation, such powers are "seldom exercised merely due to violation of some statutory provisions resulting in monetary loss."

Key Observations

The judgment offers a clear guide on the limitations of writ jurisdiction:

• "It is the settled proposition of law that the compensation cannot be claimed on the lapses on the part of the authorities in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
• "Public law causes of action to claim compensation for breach of fundamental right is described as constitutional tort... however, this public law power/constitutional Courts to grant compensation is seldom exercise merely due to violation of some statutory provisions."
• "The court can award compensation for violation of fundamental rights against the State Govt. or a public servant only after making proper inquiry."

Final Verdict: The Road to Civil Litigation

Ultimately, the High Court found the petition to be devoid of merit regarding the prayer for immediate compensation. However, the court did not leave the petitioners without a remedy. Justice Mishra dismissed the petition while granting the petitioners the liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court to seek redressal and prove their claims for compensation through regular civil proceedings.

By steering the matter toward the Civil Court, the ruling preserves the constitutional integrity of Article 226, ensuring it remains focused on fundamental rights violations rather than serving as a substitute for civil damage suits.