'Individual Liberty Not Trivial Matter' : Supreme Court Awards Rs 11 Lakh Compensation To Prisoner For 24 Day Illegal Detention

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 29) ordered the State of Rajasthan to make a payment of Rs. 11 lakh in compensation to a convict who was illegally detained for over a month, despite a judicial order existing in his favour.

“…the appellant is entitled to compensation for the twenty-four days of illegal custody suffered by him at the hands of the respondent State. The liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter. The State cannot continue curtailing the same in the face of a court order, on account of its slow bureaucratic processes of taking decisions whether to file appeals in a particular matter or not. If such a view is agreed to by us, it would amount to the liberty of a person being placed sub-par to the decision whether or not to file an appeal which is purely an administrative call. That cannot be countenanced.”, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The case arose from Daudayal's conviction in a 1967 criminal case, for which he was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. His conviction was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in 2021, following which he was arrested. In December 2023, he applied for permanent parole. The request was rejected in January 2024 on the ground that he had not availed the three stages of regular parole contemplated under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.

The Rajasthan High Court's Single Judge Bench, however, allowed his writ petition on November 5, 2024, directing his release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and two sureties of ₹50,000 each. Despite compliance with these conditions, Daudayal was not released. He thereafter approached the Division Bench through a habeas corpus petition, and on December 6, 2024, the High Court ordered his immediate release.

Before the Supreme Court, Daudayal contended that the period between the Single Judge's release order and his eventual release amounted to illegal detention, entitling him to compensation. He sought ₹8 lakh, arguing that State authorities had violated his fundamental rights by keeping him incarcerated despite a valid judicial order.

The delay was attributed to administrative and bureaucratic procedures within the State machinery, including the time taken to obtain opinions, approvals, and instructions regarding the filing of an appeal. During this period, no stay order had been obtained against the judicial order directing the appellant's release.

Emphasising that individual liberty occupies a paramount position under the Constitution, the judgment authored by Justice Karol deprecated the practice of prolonging incarceration merely because the State machinery had not yet taken a decision regarding the filing of an appeal.

Holding the respondent State accountable for keeping the appellant in custody for twenty-four additional days despite a court order, the bench observed:

“Once the detenue has been ordered to be released, the same has to be followed no matter what. The only scenario in which it would not be so done was if a superior Court has granted stay in the matter. Just because a person had been convicted does not mean that his rights weigh less on the scales of justice. We say so for the reason that the due process of verification of sureties had already taken place and despite the same there is an unexplained delay. This Court is oblivious of the fact that such official processes do require some time however, it is incumbent upon the State to ensure its processes do not negatively impact an individual who has secured his liberty.”, the court observed.

Referring to landmark decisions including Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Court reaffirmed that monetary compensation is a recognised public law remedy for violations of Article 21.

Awarding compensation, the Bench observed that an individual's liberty cannot be subordinated to administrative decision-making within the government.

"The State cannot continue curtailing the same in the face of a court order, on account of its slow bureaucratic processes of taking decisions whether to file appeals in a particular matter or not," the Court said. It added that even a convicted person does not enjoy lesser constitutional protections.

Headnote

Constitution of India – Article 21 [Right to Life and Personal Liberty] – Administrative Delay in Releasing Prisoner on Parole Post-Judicial Order – Inherent Power / Public Law Remedy – Grant of Monetary Compensation for Illegal Detention - Appeal seeking monetary compensation for 24 days of illegal detention resulting from administrative delay by State authorities in executing a judicial release order on permanent parole - The High Court had directed the release of the appellant-convict on parole, and despite compliance with the conditions and verification of sureties, the State delayed his actual release on the ground that it was considering filing an appeal against the parole order - The Supreme Court observed that the deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of constitutional provisions constitutes illegal detention - Supreme Court forcefully negated the State's justification, holding that a judicial order remains in operation unless stayed, modified, or set aside by a superior forum - The principle of "obey first, appeal later" must guide executive actions, and the State cannot subordinate an individual's fundamental right to personal liberty to its slow bureaucratic processes or administrative decisions regarding whether to prefer an appeal - Just because a person is a convict does not mean their constitutional rights weigh any less on the scales of justice - Held, the non-release of the prisoner after the satisfaction of judicial conditions amounts to illegal detention, for which monetary compensation is an established public law remedy to penalize the public wrong and make amends - The State was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- directly to the appellant. [Paras 9 - 12]

Key Legal Observations & Guidelines by Supreme Court - Definition of Illegal Detention - i. The deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of provisions of the Constitution is illegal detention - It includes instances where the detention lacks a valid legal basis or where a lawful power is exercised arbitrarily, in bad faith, or through a procedure that fails to observe essential safeguards; ii. Binding Nature of Judicial Orders ("Obey First, Appeal Later") - Once a competent court issues a direction, it must be obeyed and implemented without reservation - The mere filing or anticipation of an appeal does not automatically keep a judicial order in abeyance or operate as a stay - Flouting or ignoring such directions on a specious plea that the order is erroneous undermines the rule of law and invites chaos; iii. [Relied on Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (1983) 4 SCC 141; Poonam Lata vs. M.L. Wadhawan, (1987) 3 SCC 347; Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705; Kanu Sanyal vs.Distt. Magistrate, (1973) 2 SCC 674; Kanu Sanyal vs. Distt. Magistrate, (1973) 2 SCC 674; Paras 7 9]

Cause Title: DAUDAYAL Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 567

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Tushar Bathija, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR