'Liberty can't be a victim of bureaucratic process': Supreme Court awards Rs 11 lakh to man for illegal detention

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that liberty cannot be allowed to be a victim of a bureaucratic casualty and the state cannot curtail freedom merely because officials are contemplating whether to file an appeal.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih directed the Rajasthan government to pay Rs 11 lakh in compensation to a convict kept behind bars for 24 days despite a high court order granting him permanent parole.

Allowing a plea by Daudayal for compensation, the bench said, “The liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter. The state cannot continue curtailing the same in the face of a court order, on account of its slow bureaucratic processes of taking decisions whether to file appeals in a particular matter or not."

The court rejected the contention by the State that the matter was then under contemplation for appeal.

"In our considered view, the principle of “obey first, appeal later” ought to have been applied. Going a step further, it is well settled that mere preferring of an appeal would not, by itself, operate as a stay of the order,'' the bench said.

The court also underscored if the State's view is agreed to, it would amount to the liberty of a person being placed sub-par to the decision whether or not to file an appeal which is purely an administrative call.

"That cannot be countenanced," it said.

The bench pointed out even where a law permits detention, it becomes illegal if the procedure followed is not just, fair, and reasonable, including failure to observe essential safeguards. It would also cover situations where the power to detain is exercised arbitrarily, for an improper purpose, or in bad faith.

"A judicial order or decree remains in operation unless stayed, modified, or set aside; mere filing of an appeal or application would not, by itself, automatically keep the order in abeyance," the bench said.

On the issue of compensation, the bench held once parole had been granted and sureties produced to the satisfaction of the concerned court, the non-release becomes illegal detention.

"Once the detenue has been ordered to be released, the same has to be followed no matter what. The only scenario in which it would not be so done was if a superior court has granted stay in the matter. Just because a person had been convicted does not mean that his rights weigh less on the scales of justice," the bench said.

Appellant Daudayal was convicted by a trial court in 1988 and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment in connection with a 1967 case on allegations of unlawful assembly, house trespass and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

In 2021, the Rajasthan High Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. He was taken into custody to serve the sentence.

In 2023, while serving his sentence, he applied for permanent parole, which prison authorities rejected. He moved the high court after his application was rejected.

On November 5, 2024, a single-judge bench of the high court ordered his release on parole subject to certain conditions.

Even though the appellant complied with the conditions imposed by the high court and his sureties were verified on November 13, 2024, he remained in prison. He moved before a division bench of the high court, which directed his immediate release on December 6, 2024. The petitioner approached Supreme Court seeking compensation for the time he was forced to remain in jail despite the parole order.