Compensatory Jurisprudence Expr

INTERIM REPORT
TAPAJYOTI DEB
06LS192
ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, DEHRADUN
Compensation means Something (such as money)
given or received as payment or reparation (as for a
service or loss or injury)
Jurisprudence means The branch of philosophy
concerned with the law and the principles that lead
courts to make the decisions they do.
Judiciary has undertaken the task of protecting the
right to life and personal liberty of all the people
irrespective of the absence of any express
constitutional provision and of judicial precedents.
Regarding the liability of the State to pay
compensation for infringing Article 21, the Court
answered in the affirmative saying that if it were not
so, Article 21 will be denuded of its significant
content.
 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.
 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this
Part.-(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this
Part is guaranteed.
 226 .Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari,
 Clause (1) of Article 300 of the Constitution provides first,
that the Government of India may sue or be sued by the name
of the Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or
be sued by the name of the State;
P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. Vs. Secretary of State --
Plaintiff met with an accident, caused by negligence
of the servants of the Government.
“King can do no wrong”, had no application to the
East India Company. Co. And secretary of India can
be sued.... Sec 65 of G.O.I act 1858
if a tort were committed by a public servant in the
discharge of sovereign functions, no action would lie
against the Government.
 Kasturi lal case-- (a) The act was done in the purported
exercise of a statutory power.
(b) The act was done in the exercise of a sovereign
function.
 Vidyawathi case --
 Rudal shah case – granting moneytary compensation to an

unfortunate victim of state lawlessness.
The concern of the highest court to do justice rather than
mechanically applying the law based on precedents is
reinforcing the credibility of the judiciary among the
public, especially the helpless have-nots.
Crowns proceedings act, dismissed “ king can do no
wrong”.
European Union -- The EU law breached must have
been intended to confer rights on individuals,
The breach must be sufficiently serious,
There must be a direct causal link between the state's
breach and the loss suffered.
Sonaullah Dar and Others vs. Union Of India
Bijbehara firing incident in 1993, the judgement was
given in 2007.
Petitioners have filed the present petition for
directing the respondents to pay compensation to the
tune of Rs. 50 lacs each to the petitioners who are the
legal heirs of the deceased.
An enquiry committee was placed.
Parties were raising anti-India slogans and getting
aggressive.
S.I Malhar Singh was shot and his weapon was taken
away.
Militants started firing at the BSF.
No intention was there.
The petitioners have in the rejoinder stated that the
deceased persons were having their aim of life to rise
very high and thereby earn a good amount for the
benefit of their families.
Most of them were students and wanted to be a
doctor, some were Govt. employees and few were
carrying their own business.
Respondents are liable to compensate.
Sanctioned ex- gratia relief of Rs. One lac in favour of
the next of the kin of the deceased.
No dispute over the fact that the incident has taken
place.
No medical report on SI Malhar Singh.
Respondents claimed that JK Special Power of Act,
and sanction of law. Involvement of the militants.
Mob was peaceful.
firing upon the procession was absolutely un-
provoked
Plea of Retaliation of militants firing for self defense is
baseless and concocted.
 51 bullet fired, 31 killed and 73 injured.
no causalities from the BSF side , and no militants or
armed person in the crowd.
offence out of vengeance and their barbarous act is
deliberate and well planned.
In Nilabati Behera's case it was observed by the
Supreme Court that where there is a contravention of
human rights and fundamental freedoms by State and
its agencies, court has obligation to grant
compensation in petition under Art. 32 or 226 i.e. in
public law.
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, ( 1983) 3 SCR 508: ( AIR
1983 SC 1086) granted monetary relief to the victims
for deprivation of their fundamental rights in
proceedings through petitions filed under Article 32
or 226 of the Constitution of India.
There is gross violation of the human rights which
caused an irreparable loss to the petitioners .
Most of them were students having a bright career.
Some of them were doing business and earning a
handsome income to sustain their family.
pay a compensation of Rs. 4 lacs to each petitioner for
the loss of life of their close relatives/dependants who
have been killed in the incident and whose particulars
are given in the petition.
This amount shall be in addition to the ex-gratia relief
paid to them.
Are the deaths of the person related to the petitioners
occurred due to police firing?
Is the state entitled to take the defence of sovereign
immunity?
Impact of contributory negligence in the incidents and
mitigating factors?
What is just and reasonable compensation to be
awarded in this case?
Is the compensation awarded under article 226/32 is
complete or final or subject to claim relief in
appropriate forum?

Compensatory Jurisprudence Expr

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Compensatory Jurisprudence Expr

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERIM REPORT

 Rudal shah case – granting moneytary compensation to an

You might also like