NILABATI BEHERA V. STATE OF ORISSA (1993)

1. Case Title & Citation 

Full name of the case: Nilabati Behera V. State of Orissa (1993)

Citation: AIR 1993 SC 1960; (1993) 2 SCC 746

2. Court Name & Bench

Name of the court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.S. Verma, Justice Faizan Uddin & Justice Dr. A.S. Anand

Type: Division Bench

4. Date of Judgement: 24th March, 1993
5. Parties involved:

Petitioner: Nilabati Behera, a grieving mother

Respondent: State of Orissa and its police officials 

5. Facts of the Case:

Nilabati Behera was an ordinary woman from Odisha, like all mothers who had wanted her child to come home safe. Her son, Suman Behera, was a young man around 22 years old at the time of the incident. On December 1, 1987, Suman was taken into police custody by the Jeraikela Police Station that was located in the Sundargarh district of Odisha. The police claimed he was a suspect in a theft case. But no formal arrest memo was given, and no charge was officially against him. He was never produced before a magistrate, which is deemed necessary according to the law. On the next day, December 2, 1987, Suman Behera’s dead body was found lying near the railway tracks about 5 km away from the police station. The body bore multiple injuries, which showed marks of beating, and there were wounds that clearly did not look accidental. Many people believed he had been tortured in police custody and that his body was dumped to make it look like a railway accident. Her mother, Nilabati, refused to stay silent and moved to the Supreme Court of India by way of a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution. 

The state denied any wrongdoings. They argued that Suman had escaped custody and might have been hit by a train while trying to flee. No eyewitness confirmed it, and no inquiry was conducted to support their claim either. The post-mortem report and medical evidence supported custodial assault, which indicated blunt force injuries. 

What stood out in the entire situation was the silence of procedure, i.e., no arrest record, no medical examination in custody, no examination in custody, and no explanation for the injury caused. This incident was not just about one boy’s death. It was a question regarding state accountability of basic human dignity and the actual meaning of justice under Article 21—the right to life.

Issues Raised:

1. Did the death of Suman Behera occur while he was in custody?
2. Was there a violation of Suman’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the constitution?
3. Can the state be held liable for custodial death in a constitutional court directly under Article 32?
4. Is compensation for violation of fundamental rights a part of public law remedy in India?

Arguments from both sides:

Petitioner side:

Nilabati, through her legal counsel, told the court that her son never came back home after being picked up by the police. She also argued that the police arrested him unofficially, never recorded his custody, and never followed the rules; there was an absence of an arrest memo, no medical checkup, and no magistrate production. 

It was also pointed out that the postmortem clearly showed injuries that could not have been caused by railway accidents; they were blunt force injuries, which occurred with custodial beatings. 

She claimed that the explanation given by the police officials was fake and this was an attempt to hide the truth and escape responsibility. Her legal term reminded the court that under Article 21, every citizen has the right to life with dignity, and Suman’s death was a clear violation of the right to life. The argument was not just about punishment; rather, it was about justice and accountability and also to show that the state cannot violate rights and just walk away with consequences. Compensation was awarded as it was a constitutional duty when the state failed in its responsibility to protect its citizens. 

Precedents were cited in cases such as Rudul Sah V. State of Bihar and Sebastian Hongray V. Union of India, in which the court had awarded compensation for fundamental rights violations. They also stressed this was a public law remedy under Article 32, and the court had every right to step in the matter. Overall, the heart of this argument was that “a life was lost under state custody: the system cannot look away.”

Respondent side:

The state denied everything. They claimed that Suman Behera was never formally arrested and, hence, was not in official custody. They continued arguing that he might have escaped from the police station during the night and, unfortunately, got hit by a passing train near the tracks. The police officials claimed they had no idea how he ended up dead and no proof of custodial violence. The respondent side also questioned the maintainability of the petition, stating that a writ under Article 32 cannot be used for claiming compensation in such matters. The state’s lawyers tried to make it look like a tragic accident and also that the officers did not act illegally or brutally. Their legal stand was heavily reliant on technicalities and not on human responsibility or duty. At no point did the state offer any internal inquiry reports to support their version. They stuck to the position that no custodial death had occurred and also that the petition was based on assumptions and emotions. 

Final Judgment:

The Supreme Court did not turn a blind eye and stood by the truth and gave voice to a grieving mother who fought not for money but for justice. The court stated that Suman Behera had died in police custody. His body had bone injuries that couldn’t be brushed aside easily. It was also found that the State of Orissa had failed in its duty to protect the life of a citizen in custody. Also, the police failed to follow even the most basic guidelines—no arrest records, medical checkups, and no explanation for the injuries. Court was also convinced that this act was not just negligence but a grave violation of fundamental rights, especially Article 21. The court ruled that monetary compensation is deemed necessary as a remedy when rights are crushed by those who are meant to uphold them. The court awarded Rs. 150,000 as compensation to Nilabati Behera, not as charity, but as acknowledgment of the wrong done by the state to her son. 

The court also directed the state to recover part of that amount from the officers responsible to ensure individual accountability. Through this landmark judgment, the court sent a clear message to all that the state cannot claim immunity when it takes a life in custody. Justice must and should not stop at words.

Legal Reasoning/Ratio Decidendi

The court made it clear that when a person dies in custody and the policy cannot give a proper explanation, the presumption is against the state. The burden of proof lies on those who are in control and not the helpless family. The Court built the ruling on strong constitutional principles, rooted deeply in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of life and personal liberty. The ruling strongly reinforced that constitutional courts can provide immediate remedies, including monetary compensation, when someone’s fundamental rights are violated, and not through civil suits and long trials. The Court said that Article 32 of the constitution is not limited to just declaration, and it can be used to provide real, tangible relief, including financial compensation. This case carved out a clear distinction between private wrongs and public wrongs. This was not just about a personal loss; rather, it was a state wrong affecting public trust.

The Court did not treat compensation as a substitute for criminal action but as a parallel constitutional remedy that is to be granted when a citizen’s basic rights are violated by state agents. Court also held that police officers cannot be allowed to act with impunity and also that state accountability must be real, visible, and enforceable. The court stated a powerful line: “The state must repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of its own citizens.” Overall, the Court built a bridge between constitutional morality and real-world justice and said that dignity should not end at the jail gate.

Conclusion

Nilabati Behera V. The state of Orissa was not just a legal fight in the courtroom; it was the story of a mother who refused to let her son’s death be forgotten. This judgment became a turning point in Indian constitutional law, especially in how we understand the state’s duty towards its people. For the first time, the Supreme Court firmly established that compensation for violation of fundamental rights is essential for all. It gave meaning to Article 21 and gave it purpose and emotions. It also reminded police and public servants that a uniform does not mean unchecked power and that custody is not a license to torture by them. From this case, courts began taking custodial death seriously, opening space for human rights and dignity even inside prison walls. Even today, all across the nation, debate around police accountability and custodial violence, and this case is quoted, studied, and remembered as a living call for justice.