Where a High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, awards compensation for a custodial death that it finds was caused by custodial violence, is that compensation independent of any remedy the aggrieved party may separately pursue in tort or under the penal law?

Paragraph 8When no action was forthcoming against the persons responsible for the custodial death of the deceased and no steps were taken for providing compensation to his legal heirs, inspite of the aforesaid pertinent finding recorded in the judicial inquiry report, the petitioners instituted Writ Petition (Criminal) No.76 of 2024 before the High Court, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs and appropriate action against the officers responsible for the custodial death of the deceased. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the said writ petition by judgment dated 3rd October, 2024, observing as below: - “19. The above quoted judgements make it clear that for the violation of fundamental rights of a citizen by the State or its servants, in the purported exercise of their powers, the affected citizen can resort to the remedy in public law by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It further makes it clear that the compensation is in the nature of "exemplary damages" awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law. Thus, it is settled law that compensation can be awarded for violation of fundamental rights in public law domain. 20. Above being the position of fact and law, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners, who are widow and daughters of the deceased detenu, are entitled to compensation for wrongful loss of her husband & father and the State being the employer of the employees on account of whose negligence the death of deceased took place, is liable to pay such compensation to the petitioners. 21. Now the question is what should be the amount of compensation. The Courts have time and again deprecated such conduct on the part of the police/jail officials, which is spelt out above, and therefore the compensation, which is to be awarded, should also have a deterrent effect on the State so that its officers should not be encouraged to indulge in such acts which may result in loss of a human life, a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the petitioners have lost the estate, love & affection, and dependency due to untimely death of deceased Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre at the age of 34 years on account of negligence on the part of the employees of the State, we are inclined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, failing which this amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of this order. The Director General of Jail, Chhattisgarh, Raipur will ensure payment of the compensation awarded within the time limit specified. 22. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.”