COMPENSATION JURISPRUDENCE IN CUSTODIAL DEATH CASES: THE CONSTITUTIONAL TORT DOCTRINE FROM NILABATI BEHERA TO THE PRESENT

AUTHOR- SANJAY PAUL DINAKAR, STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA

BEST CITATION – SANJAY PAUL DINAKAR,COMPENSATION JURISPRUDENCE IN CUSTODIAL DEATH CASES: THE CONSTITUTIONAL TORT DOCTRINE FROM NILABATI BEHERA TO THE PRESENT, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 390-400, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I838

ABSTRACT

Custodial death—the death of a person occurring while under the compulsive control of state detention authority—constitutes one of the gravest violations of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This research paper presents a systematic and critical analysis of the compensation jurisprudence developed by Indian courts in response to custodial deaths, with particular focus on the landmark decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746. The paper examines how the Supreme Court of India has, through a progressive line of constitutional decisions commencing with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) and culminating in the doctrinal crystallisation achieved in Nilabati Behera, constructed a public law remedy of monetary compensation that is doctrinally distinct from, and not dependent upon, the common law action for damages in tort. The central jurisprudential contributions of Nilabati Behera—the rejection of sovereign immunity as a defence in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, and the affirmation that compensation constitutes a constitutionally appropriate remedy for infringement of fundamental rights by state agents—are subjected to detailed doctrinal analysis. The paper further traces the post-Nilabati jurisprudence, identifying doctrinal achievements and persistent limitations including quantum inconsistency, the substitution of compensation for criminal accountability, and structural access barriers. A comparative analysis of analogous frameworks under the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998, and the United States Section 1983 mechanism yields lessons for reform. The paper concludes with evidence-based legislative, institutional, and doctrinal recommendations directed at strengthening the compensation framework as an instrument of accountability, deterrence, and justice.

Keywords: Custodial Death; Constitutional Tort; Public Law Remedy; Nilabati Behera; Article 21; Sovereign Immunity; Writ Jurisdiction; State Liability; Quantum of Compensation; Comparative Human Rights Law.