Article 32 of the constitution confers power on the Supreme Court to issue
direction s or order or writs , including Writs in the Nature of Habeuas corpus
, mandamus, prohibition, qua warranto, certiorari, which ever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III of
The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by part III is guaranteed " that is to say,
the righ to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of any
of the rights conferred by part lII of the Constitution is itself a fundamental
Article 32 can not be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and
obligations which can be enforced efficiously through the ordinary process of
court s - Civil and Criminal. A Money claim therefore had to be agitated in and
adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a court if Lower grade competent to try
Whether in the excercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32, the Supreme Court
can pass an order for the payment of money,if such an order is in the Nature of
compensation consequential upon deprivation of a fundamental right.
In the instant case, the petitioner was detained illegally in prison for over 14
years after his acquittal in a full dressed trial. He filed a Habeas Corpus
petition in the Supreme Court for his release from illegal detention. He
obtained that relief,the findings being his detention in the prison after his
acquittal was wholly unjustified and then he Contends that he is entitled to be
compensated for his illegal detention.
If the petitioner files a suit to recover damages for his illegal detention , a
decree for damages would have to be passed in that suit, though it is not
possible to predicate,in the absence of evidence, the precious amount which
would be decreed in his favour.
In these circumstances, the refusal of the Supreme Court to pass an order of
compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip- service to his
fundamental right to liberty which state government has grossly violated.
Article 21which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denied of its
significant content if the power of the Supreme Court were limited to passing
orders to release from illegal detention.
The Supreme Court can pass under Article 32 of the Constitution of India an
order of compensation for infringement of fundamental right.
Ref: Radul Sah v State of Bihar
, AIR 1983 SC 1086: 1983Cr Lj1644