Saheli v Commissioner of Police
✅ Case Title:
Saheli, A Women’s Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Citation: AIR 1990 SC 513; (1990) 1 SCC 422
Court: Supreme Court of India
🔍 Background:
This case is a landmark in Indian public law jurisprudence, especially concerning state liability for police excesses. The case was filed by Saheli, a non-governmental organization (NGO), seeking justice for a child who died due to police brutality. The judgment is significant for establishing that the State can be held liable to pay compensation under public law for violation of fundamental rights caused by acts of its employees, particularly the police.
⚖️ Facts of the Case:
Victim: A minor boy, nine years old, named Naresh, died allegedly due to police assault.
Naresh and his mother (Kamlesh Kumari) lived in Delhi. There was a dispute between Kamlesh Kumari and her neighbor, and she lodged a complaint with the police.
Instead of taking fair action, the police acted in collusion with the neighbor, and tried to harass Kamlesh Kumari.
On one occasion, a police officer along with other constables entered her house and beat her son Naresh, resulting in his death.
The mother was also assaulted and wrongfully confined.
Saheli, an NGO, approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking compensation and action against the guilty officers.
🧾 Legal Issues:
Can the State be held liable for the wrongful acts (tortious acts) committed by police officers in the course of their duty?
Does a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) entitle the victim to compensation under public law?
What is the scope of public interest litigation (PIL) in cases involving police brutality?
📚 Legal Principles Involved:
1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
Violation of Article 21 by state actors, such as police, gives rise to constitutional remedies.
2. State Liability under Public Law
A state can be held liable under public law (constitutional tort) for acts committed by its agents, even when such acts are unauthorized or excessive.
This is distinct from private law tortious liability, which requires separate civil proceedings.
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Recognized as a tool to enforce fundamental rights of the poor, vulnerable and voiceless.
Saheli, as an NGO, was permitted to file the petition on behalf of the victim’s family.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court’s Observations and Findings:
The police officers acted in excess of their authority, and their action resulted in the death of a minor child.
Though the action was not "authorized" by the State in the strict sense, it was carried out by agents of the State in their official capacity.
The State cannot escape its constitutional responsibility by saying that the act was unauthorised.
The right to compensation can be granted under Article 32 when there is a clear violation of fundamental rights, especially under Article 21.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity is not applicable in such cases involving fundamental rights violations.
🏛️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court awarded compensation of ₹75,000 to the mother of the deceased child, Kamlesh Kumari.
The State (Government of Delhi) was held vicariously liable for the acts of its police personnel.
The Court also recommended that disciplinary and criminal action be initiated against the responsible officers.
📌 Significance of the Case:
Established that the State is liable to pay compensation for violations of fundamental rights by its agents.
Expanded the scope of Article 32 and PIL for monetary compensation, setting precedent for future public law damages claims.
Weakened the doctrine of sovereign immunity in cases involving fundamental rights.
One of the first cases where constitutional tort liability was recognized and compensation was granted under public law remedy.
📚 Related Case Law:
1. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141
Compensation awarded for illegal detention of a man despite court orders.
First major case where Supreme Court granted compensation for violation of fundamental rights.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Compensation granted for custodial death of the petitioner’s son.
Reinforced the principle of public law compensation.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Laid down guidelines for arrest and detention, and emphasized liability of the State for custodial torture.
4. Bhim Singh v. State of J & K (1985) 4 SCC 677
Compensation awarded for illegal arrest of an MLA; emphasized the role of courts in upholding liberty.
📝 Summary:
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Parties | Saheli (NGO) vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi |
| Citation | AIR 1990 SC 513; (1990) 1 SCC 422 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Legal Issue | State liability for police brutality; compensation under Article 32 |
| Held | State liable to pay ₹75,000 for death caused by police assault |
| Importance | Expanded right to constitutional compensation; curbed sovereign immunity |
RELATED Blog
0 comments