Right to protection of life

2013 SCMR 66 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Right to protection of lifeInviolability of dignity of manCustodial tortureVictim suffering humiliation and harassment in police custodyTortMonetary compensation to victim by way of public law remedyScope

Victim (appellant), while in police custody, was compelled to hold a placard in which self-condemning language was written and he was photographed with the said placard and the photograph was made public

State authorities found the erring police officers guilty

Victim sought public law remedy for grant of compensation and filed constitutional petition before the High Court contending that actions of police and other authorities affected his fundamental right to live with dignity and that he should be granted compensation

High Court recorded findings in favour of the victim but required him to submit a representation to the Provincial Government for adequate relief pertaining to grant of compensation with a further stipulation that if he was aggrieved by it, he could take recourse to requisite proceedings available to him under law

Validity

Facts borne out on record showed that victim had been tortured and humiliated and treatment inflicted on him was inhumane and caused mental trauma

When there was contravention of human rights, the inherent concern as envisaged in the fundamental right of protection of life (security of person) sprang to life and enabled the citizen to seek relief by taking recourse to public law remedy

Relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings before Supreme Court or High Court for established infringement of constitutional right of protection of life (security of person) was a remedy available in public law and was based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen

Purpose of public law was not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they lived under a legal system which aimed to protect their interests and preserved their rights, therefore, when court granted 'compensation' as a relief in proceedings before the Supreme Court or High Court seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it did so under public law by way of penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which had failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen

Payment of compensation in such cases was not to be understood, as it was generally understood in a civil action for damages under private law, but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, by not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen

Compensation in such cases was in the nature of 'exemplary damages' awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and was independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction and/ or to prosecute the offender under the penal law

Appeal was allowed and a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was granted to the victim as compensation.

2013 SCMR 66 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Right to protection of lifeInviolability of dignity of manInhumane treatmentScope

Inhumane treatment had many a facet; it covered such acts which had been inflicted with an intention to cause physical suffering or severe mental pain and it would also include a treatment that caused humiliation and compelled a person to act against his will or conscience.

2013 SCMR 66 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Right to protection of lifeScope

Right to life as enshrined in the Constitution included the right to live with human dignity and all that went along with it.