Delhi High Court: In a writ petition seeking compensation for the custodial death of the petitioner’s adopted son, who died while in police custody at Police Station Karawal Nagar on 16 January 2018, a Single Judge Bench of Sachin Datta, J., held that an unnatural death in State custody, including one caused by suicide, constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby attracting the State’s public law liability to compensate the deceased’s next of kin. The Court held that such constitutional compensation is independent of and in addition to the statutory compensation available under Section 357-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to pay a total compensation of ₹18,44,400 to the petitioner within 8 weeks.
The petitioner alleged that after his son’s arrest in connection with an FIR, both he and his son were illegally detained, assaulted, and subjected to extortion demands by police officials. The following day, his son was declared dead, with the post-mortem attributing the cause of death to ante-mortem hanging. The petitioner contended that the State was liable to compensate him for the unnatural custodial death, while the respondents argued that compensation should be governed solely by the statutory framework under Section 357-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme.
The principal issue before the Court was not to determine the exact cause of the deceased’s death or adjudicate allegations of custodial violence or foul play. Rather, the Court confined itself to deciding whether the petitioner, whose son suffered an unnatural death while in police custody, was entitled to compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution and, if so, the appropriate quantum of such compensation.
The Court held that an unnatural death in custody, including one resulting from suicide, constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on precedents including Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746; D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416; Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658; Kiran v. State, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 877 and other High Court decisions, the Court reiterated that the State owes a strict and non-delegable duty of care to every person in its custody and cannot evade liability merely because the precise cause of death remains disputed. The Court further clarified that compensation awarded under writ jurisdiction is a constitutional public law remedy independent of, and in addition to, statutory compensation schemes.
“Custodial death is not merely an individual tragedy but a matter of systemic concern, striking at the very foundation of the Rule of Law. When a person is deprived of liberty and placed in the custody of the State, the authorities assume a heightened duty of care. Any lapse resulting in death within custody, whether attributed to violence, negligence, unexplained circumstances or even suicide, demands judicial scrutiny, for it implicates both the dignity of the individual and the credibility of the justice system.”
On the issue of quantum, the Court rejected the respondents’ contention that compensation must be confined to the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme and instead applied the multiplier method laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
“The compensation for custodial death flows directly from the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and constitutes a remedy in public law. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 is wide enough to mould compensation as an equitable relief. Such compensation is distinct from and in addition to the statutory or private law remedies.”
Taking the deceased’s monthly income at ₹12,000, adding 40 per cent towards prospects, deducting 50 per cent towards personal expenses, and applying the multiplier of 18, along with conventional amounts towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, the Court computed the total compensation at ₹18,44,400. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to pay the petitioner the said amount within 8 weeks, reaffirming that Constitutional Courts possess wide powers under Article 226 to award just compensation for violations of the right to life arising from custodial deaths.
[Shyam Sundar v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(C) 9558/2020 and CM APPL.30647/2020, decided on 1-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Trideep Pais, Sr. Adv., Sanya Kumar,Chiranjeev SinghMarwaha, Ms. Saloni Ambastha, Sakshi Jain and. S. Abinaya, Advs.
For Respondent: Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC, Shrey Sharma, Anubhav Upadhyay and Arpit Bansal, Advs. along with Insp. Ram Manohar, DIU North East Distt.
