Can Monetary Compensation Restore Dignity Lost Due To Illegal Detentions?

The recent judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of  Mansoor Ahmad @ Lallu and another vs State of U.P. & Chander Pal Singh v State of UP (2026) relating to preventive detention in Uttar Pradesh has highlighted the issue of narrow police power, meant for prevention of cognizable offences has become a tool of misuse and humiliation. As per the records placed before the court, Prayagraj Commissionerate shows 283 preventive detentions in the year 2024 which increased to 1,321 in 2025 and 721 in 2026 as of the date. The Ghaziabad Commissionerate has recorded most shocking figures of 2,522 persons who were detained between May 2025 to April 2026. The alarming trend is that detainees were languishing in custody for more than 20 days where these individuals' illegality is turned to institutional pattern. The judgement should not be considered as a routine habeas corpus issue as the detention figures confronted by court are difficult to reconcile with the constitutional democracy. This raises the substantial question on protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, Article 21 which protects the life and liberty through a just, fair and reasonable procedure and Article 22 requires prompt production of a detainee before a magistrate as safeguard against prolonged custody.

170 BNSS the new 151 CrPC

There has been historical misuse of power given to the investigating agencies under 151 CrPC to arrest a person without a warrant or the order of a Magistrate if there is any apprehension known to the officer for the commission of a cognizable offence and cannot be prevented otherwise. The new section 170 of BNSS is also substantially similar to a constitutional-looking restraint: no person can be detained beyond twenty-four hours unless there is required or authorized provision of law. The investigating agencies are failing to acknowledge that this statutory expression of personal liberty is not merely a clerical detail; rather they are converting the preventive arrests to short-term jail sentence by administrative habit. The Allahabad High Court has highlighted the concerning trend followed by the police officials in exercising the preventive detention power as “shocking state of affairs”. Such practices show how the new statutory vocabulary is reviving old abuses where authorities are assuming new open-ended power of detention under new criminal laws.

Dignity at stake

The history of authorities flaunting the statutory mandates raises serious questions on human rights protection. The harm of detention of a person is not just limited to the loss of his liberty as a person's dignity is also at stake when any action is taken by the authorities. A person who is taken to the police station, kept in custody or sent to jail and described in the police records as a preventive detainee carries lifelong suspicion burdens which cannot be undone in future. There is a permanent embarrassment before the neighbors, friends, and family members who are witnessing the police action. The family and children are under fear if the person does not return home. There is substantial loss to daily wages, professional standing, and social confidence leading to a deeper injury to the dignity of a person. In the eyes of society, the detainee is treated as a potential criminal many times without even a properly recorded reason. The stigma of jail is attached to the person's marriage prospects, employment and local reputation throughout his life even if the legal file is closed. The consequences of indignity are not limited to the person detained; it extends to his family, i.e., his children, wife, and parents. There is an acute humiliation to the person as preventive arrests usually take place in the ordinary spaces of life, such as a market, workplace, or family courtyard. In such circumstances, no amount of explanation to those who have seen the detention will undo the indignity and embarrassment suffered by the person.

Dignity reduced to arithmetic

In cases of illegal detention, the courts often order monetary compensation to the detainees but here the major question remains unanswered: can dignity be reduced to arithmetic? Can compensation undo the embarrassment already caused to the person? The constitutional remedy to such instances is subsequent release and acquittal or transfer of money. But such remedies are of no solace and offer no reparation to the loss of reputation of the person as the arrest is public, while release and declaration of illegality are often private. The neighbours will remember the police vehicle, not the court order. Employers and colleagues will remember the absence from the work, not the constitutional violation. The family will remember standing outside the jail and court, not the compensation cheque. Following the public law remedy the constitutional courts have historically recognized from the case of Rudul Sah (1983) to D.K. Basu (1997) that where public officials have violated the personal liberty, a civil suit or disciplinary enquiry is not the adequate answer. The wrongs need to be given some immediate relief, and states must pay for the abuse of power. The Supreme Court has already warned the authorities in the series of cases from Joginder Kumar (1994) to Arnesh Kumar (2014) and Satender Kumar Antil (2024) that arrest and detentions cannot be made in a routine manner. Here the injury is not simply the number of hours/days sometimes months are lost rather it is the reduction of a citizen into an object of administrative convenance.

Way Forward

On 29 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Daudayal v. The State of Rajasthan (2026) ordered the compensation ₹11 Lakhs to the person illegally detained for 24 days. Following this, the High Court of Allahabad ruled that ₹ 25,000 per day as a part of compensation should be paid by the state to the detainee. The court directed that the compensation amount be recovered from the salaries of responsible police officials, along with disciplinary proceedings. Considering the sensitivity of such cases, the mere transfer of money is not sufficient. Although it may be meaningful for a person struggling financially, but it is inadequate to undo the reputational harm suffered by him. The number of detentions highlighted by the Allahabad High Court exposes the constitutional faults, where preventive power is transformed into punishment while manufacturing the stigma. Government need to review such instances and formulate strict guidelines to curb routine preventive arrests, as such practices diminish the dignity of detainees as well as the constitution, which guarantees protection from such abuses.