CONSTITUTIONAL TORT

Why In the News?

Recently, Indian courts have reiterated the principle of constitutional tort while awarding monetary compensation in cases involving custodial deaths, illegal detention, and violation of fundamental rights by state authorities.

1. Meaning of Constitutional Tort

Constitutional tort refers to a legal remedy under public law in which the State is held liable to pay compensation for violation of fundamental rights of individuals by its officials or agencies.
Constitutional tort arises when there is an infringement of rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Constitutional tort is different from private tort because it is based on the violation of constitutional rights and not merely civil wrongs.

2. Legal Basis of Constitutional Tort in India

The doctrine of constitutional tort in India is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it has been evolved by judicial interpretation.

The legal foundation of constitutional tort is derived mainly from:

Article 32 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights.
Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of rights.
Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.

The courts have interpreted these provisions to include the power to grant compensation for violation of fundamental rights.

3. Evolution of Constitutional Tort in India

1. Early Phase (Sovereign Immunity)

Initially, the British doctrine of sovereign immunity prevailed, according to which the State could not be sued for the wrongful acts of its servants.

2. Shift Towards State Liability

The Indian judiciary gradually diluted the doctrine of sovereign immunity by holding the State accountable for illegal acts affecting citizens’ rights.

4. Landmark Supreme Court Judgments

Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)

The Supreme Court held that compensation can be granted under Article 32 for illegal detention, and it recognized compensation as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Odisha (1993)

The Supreme Court held that the State is strictly liable for custodial deaths and that compensation is a constitutional remedy independent of civil or criminal proceedings.

Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985)

The Supreme Court awarded compensation for illegal arrest and detention of an MLA, emphasizing protection of personal liberty under Article 21.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial violence and recognized compensation as a remedy for custodial abuse.

Common Cause v. Union of India (1999)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that monetary compensation is a recognized remedy for constitutional violations by the State.

5. Key Features of Constitutional Tort

Constitutional tort is a public law remedy and not a private law remedy.
Constitutional tort focuses on violation of fundamental rights and not on ordinary civil injury.
The principle of strict liability is applied in many constitutional tort cases.
Compensation is awarded by constitutional courts as a means of enforcement of rights.
The remedy is preventive, corrective, and compensatory in nature.

6. Constitutional Tort vs Ordinary Tort

Constitutional Tort	Ordinary Tort
It arises from violation of fundamental rights	It arises from violation of legal rights
It is governed by constitutional law	It is governed by civil law
It is enforced through writ jurisdiction	It is enforced through civil courts
Compensation is based on public law	Compensation is based on private law
Doctrine of sovereign immunity is diluted	Sovereign immunity may apply

7. Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity and Constitutional Tort

The doctrine of sovereign immunity holds that the State cannot be sued without its consent.
However, in constitutional tort cases, Indian courts have consistently held that sovereign immunity cannot be used as a defense when fundamental rights are violated.

8. Significance of Constitutional Tort

Constitutional tort strengthens the concept of rule of law by making the State accountable for its actions.
Constitutional tort ensures effective enforcement of fundamental rights.
Constitutional tort promotes the idea of a welfare state by protecting citizens against abuse of power.
Constitutional tort acts as a deterrent against arbitrary and illegal actions by public authorities.

Question: Which of the following best describes the concept of Constitutional Tort?
(a) A civil wrong committed by a private individual against another private individual.
(b) A criminal offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
(c) A public law remedy where the State is held liable for violation of fundamental rights.
(d) A contractual dispute between the government and citizens.

Correct Answer: (c)
Explanation:
The concept of constitutional tort refers to a public law remedy in which constitutional courts hold the State liable to compensate individuals for violation of their fundamental rights, especially under Articles 14 and 21. It is not a private civil dispute, not a criminal offence, and not related to contractual obligations.