State cannot curtail individual’s liberty: Supreme Court
Underlining that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed by the State on account of slow bureaucratic processes, the Supreme Court on Friday awarded Rs 11 lakh compensation to a man who was kept in illegal custody for 24 days despite the court issuing his release order.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih was hearing a plea filed by the man who was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of four years for rioting and house-trespass by a court in Alwar, Rajasthan.
He applied for permanent parole on December 3, 2023, but his plea was rejected on January 18, 2024. He later challenged the order before the Rajasthan High Court.
A single judge allowed his petition on November 5, 2024, and directed his release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh and two sureties of Rs 50,000 each.
By this time, he had already served 3 years, two months and 20 days of his four-year sentence.
By November 25, 2024, he had still not been released despite complying with the conditions stipulated in the HC order. He then approached the Division Bench, which ordered his immediate release on December 6, 2024.
The man then moved the Supreme Court seeking compensation for illegal custody.
During the hearing on Friday, the top court quoted George Washington, the first US president, and said, “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”
“We are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to compensation for the 24 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,” the bench said.
The top court said once the detainee has been ordered to be released, the same has to be followed no matter what and the only scenario in which it would not be so done was if a superior Court has granted a stay in the matter.
“Just because a person has 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,” it said.
“This Court is (not) 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 bench said.
