The Constitution permits the State to arrest, detain, and prosecute individuals in accordance with law. What it does not permit is the erosion of their fundamental right to life merely because they are in police custody. A person under arrest may lose the freedom to move, but not the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution.
This constitutional principle received renewed emphasis in Shyam Sundar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., W.P.(C) 9558/2020, where the Delhi High Court held that an unnatural custodial death, whether resulting from violence, negligence, unexplained circumstances, or even suicide, can attract constitutional liability of the State, entitling the deceased’s family to compensation.
The decision is significant because it moves the legal discussion beyond the narrow question of how a detainee died. Instead, it focuses on a more fundamental constitutional issue: What responsibility does the State owe to a person once it assumes custody over his life and liberty?
Facts of the Case
The deceased was taken into lawful police custody in connection with criminal proceedings. During the period of detention, he suffered injuries leading to his death under circumstances that were neither natural nor satisfactorily explained by the authorities.
Following the incident:
- The family alleged that the death occurred because of custodial violence or negligence.
- They asserted that the police failed to protect the life of a person entirely under their control.
- Official records and inquiries disclosed inconsistencies regarding the events preceding the death.
- The authorities were unable to provide a convincing explanation reconciling the injuries sustained by the deceased with the version put forward by the police.
The petitioners therefore invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court seeking constitutional compensation for violation of Article 21.
Issues Before the Court
The principal questions before the Delhi High Court were:
- Whether the State can be held constitutionally liable for an unnatural death occurring in police custody.
- Whether compensation under public law can be awarded in writ proceedings independently of criminal prosecution or civil remedies.
- Whether failure to satisfactorily explain a custodial death constitutes a violation of the right to life under Article 21.
- What principles should govern the determination of compensation in cases involving custodial deaths?
Contentions of the Petitioner
The petitioners argued that the deceased was in the exclusive custody of the police when he sustained fatal injuries. Consequently, the burden lay upon the State to explain how the death occurred.
They submitted that:
- Article 21 imposes an absolute obligation upon the State to protect persons in custody.
- The presumption of innocence or questions regarding criminal investigation are irrelevant while determining constitutional liability.
- Public law compensation serves a different purpose from damages awarded in civil suits.
- The family should not be compelled to undergo prolonged civil litigation merely to receive compensation for an obvious constitutional violation.
- Constitutional courts have consistently awarded compensation where custodial deaths establish infringement of fundamental rights.
The petitioners further relied upon several Supreme Court decisions recognising monetary compensation as an effective constitutional remedy.
Contentions of the State
The State opposed the petition by arguing that:
- Appropriate criminal investigations had already been initiated.
- Departmental proceedings were available to determine individual responsibility.
- Compensation should not be granted before completion of criminal proceedings.
- The allegations of custodial violence had not yet attained final judicial determination.
- Disputed questions of fact rendered the writ petition unsuitable for deciding liability.
The State also maintained that constitutional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously where factual controversies remain unresolved.
