State Absolutely Liable For Prison Suicide As Custodial Death: Allahabad High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh As Compensation

Noting that the Constitution is silent on an express provision for compensation in cases of custodial death, the Court said that the situation is “flabbergasting”. Nevertheless, it reaffirmed that constitutional courts can award monetary compensation in exercise of their writ jurisdiction to remedy violations of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench awarded ₹10 lakh compensation to the kin of the deceased, emphasising that the right to life and human dignity does not end at the prison gates, and once a person is in custody, an enhanced and non-delegable duty is cast upon the State to ensure his safety.

Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla while dealing with a writ petition filed by a mother seeking compensation for the death of her minor son, who allegedly died by suicide inside District Jail, Pilibhit, observed, “It is flabbergasting to note that there is no express mandate in our Indian Constitution for the grant of compensation for unlawful detention or custodial death. India has ratified to the International Covenant in Civil and Political Rights, 1966 wherein Article 9(5) states that “Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation”. In consistence with the above ratification, India owes its obligation to the international community. Furthermore, the Law Commission of India, in its 273rd report on implementation of United Nations Convention Against Torture, has observed custodial violence marked by weak accountability, lack of transparency and institutional protection of errant officials”.

“…If the death in custody occurs naturally then State cannot be faulted with, but if the death is caused unnaturally then State is absolutely liable for its act/omission which resulted in death of an individual. The International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) has also issued guidelines on investigating deaths in custody, wherein a clear distinction between natural and unnatural death has been carved. According to ICRC, death is the irreversible cessation of all vital functions including brain activity. It is natural when it is caused solely by disease and/or aging process. It is unnatural when the causes are external such as intentional injury, negligence or unintentional injury (death by accident)”, the bench further observed.

Advocate Rama Kant Dixit appeared for the petitioner.

In the matter, the petitioner’s son had been arrested in connection with a criminal case under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and provisions of the POCSO Act. After being enlarged on bail on 12-02-2022, he was re-arrested on 07-02-2024 for non-appearance before the trial court. On 20-02-2024, he was found hanging in the jail premises.

Pursuant to which, a panchnama and post-mortem report concluded that the cause of death was “asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging”. The inquest report under Section 176 CrPC (now Section 196 BNSS) also recorded that it was a case of suicide and found no signs of custodial violence.

The National Human Rights Commission had directed payment of ₹3 lakh as compensation to the next of kin. However, the petitioner approached the High Court alleging inaction and claiming that her son had been subjected to harassment and illegal monetary demands inside jail.

Therefore, the core issue now before the Court was whether a suicide committed inside prison would amount to custodial death and whether compensation could be granted in writ jurisdiction.

The Court laid an extensive reference to constitutional jurisprudence on custodial deaths, referring to landmark Supreme Court judgments in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141, Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017) 10 SCC 658, In Suo Motu Custodial Violence and Other Matters Relating to Prison Conditions v. State of Meghalaya reported in (2023) 5 GLT 19.

The Court observed that a suicide in custody is still an “unnatural death,” and the State cannot shirk responsibility merely because there was no direct evidence of torture.

“…the State is absolutely liable for the unnatural death of the deceased, as an amplified duty is cast upon the State for the death of a prisoner in custody of police without any exception. No State can shirk its duties and responsibilities for providing better facilities to prisoners. Accordingly the case of custodial death is made out in the present case”, the judgment read.

On the issue of whether compensation can be granted in writ jurisdiction, the Court reaffirmed the public law remedy evolved by constitutional courts. Relying on Rudul Sah and Nilabati Behera, it held that compensation in custodial death cases is a constitutional remedy, where the defence of sovereign immunity is not available. Furthermore, it observed that the purpose of compensation is compensatory in nature and not punitive, where the State may recover the amount from erring officials in accordance with law.

Referring to the judgment in Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Bench noted that prison suicides constitute a disproportionately high percentage of unnatural deaths in custody. It highlighted the need for systemic prison reforms and preventive mechanisms, including psychological support and humane prison conditions.

Cause Title: Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:13651-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Rama Kant Dixit, Uday Kumar, Advocates.

Respondent: C.S.C.