Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.M. Manoj directed the State government to pay Rs. 14 lakh compensation to an overseas Indian and four family members after he spent 54 days in judicial custody following his arrest on a mistaken identification in a gold chain-snatching case. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court found that the arrest and detention, later shown to be based on a wrong attribution of the offence, warranted monetary redress under public law. It awarded Rs. 10 lakh to the petitioner and Rs. 1 lakh each to his wife and three children for the mental agony, trauma, defamation and harassment attributed to police conduct, while leaving the State free to recover the amount from the officers in accordance with procedure.

The writ petition arose from allegations of illegal arrest and wrongful detention of an individual who had returned to India on a short leave from overseas employment to attend a family marriage. During this period, he was implicated in a chain-snatching case and arrested by police officials. He was placed under judicial custody for 54 days. According to the petitioners, the arrest was affected without proper verification of identity or investigation, despite their consistent claim that the individual was elsewhere at the time of the alleged offence.

Also Read: Validly Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled To Seek Higher Bids Later; Highest Bidder Declaration Crystallises Rights, Allotment Letter Must Follow: Supreme Court

The petitioners contended that no stolen property or vehicle allegedly used in the offence was recovered and that requests for scientific evidence, including call detail records and CCTV analysis, were ignored. They also alleged custodial ill-treatment, public parading, and reputational harm. Subsequent investigation by a senior police officer concluded that the offence had been committed by another person and that lapses had occurred during the initial investigation.

The respondents asserted that the arrest was made in good faith based on witness identification and CCTV footage and denied allegations of torture or malice. The dispute before the Court concerned whether compensation could be granted under public law for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, or whether the petitioners should be relegated to civil remedies.

The Court examined whether wrongful arrest and detention amounted to a public law wrong warranting constitutional compensation. It recorded that “the wrongful arrest and detention of a person constitutes not merely a private wrong, but a public wrong resulting from the abuse of State power.”

The Court observed that “such violations strike at the very core of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” It stated that where fundamental rights are infringed by State action, the remedy lies in public law and not merely in private tortious claims.

On the facts, the Court noted that “even the petitioner’s doubt with respect to the mismatch of identity of the person seen in the CCTV footage with that of the petitioner was completely ignored.” It further recorded that “had the respondents taken a little care and caution in re-analysing the materials collected by them, such an unfortunate incident would have been avoided.”

Referring to the subsequent investigation, the Court recorded that “lapses occurred on the part of the respondents in arresting the petitioner and in verifying the plea of innocence.” It also took note that the petitioner was publicly paraded and subjected to humiliation, observing that “there is no specific answer with respect to defaming the petitioner in the society for a crime which was not committed by him.”

The Court reiterated settled constitutional principles, stating that “the defence of sovereign immunity is unavailable where there is a violation of Article 21.” It further observed that compensation under Articles 226 and 32 “is a constitutional mechanism to enforce accountability of public authorities.”

Also Read: Public Servant Entitled To Be Heard Before Sanction Under PC Act When Request Originates From Private Complainant, Not Police Or Investigation Agency: Kerala High Court

The Court directed that “this writ petition is disposed of by granting compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs to the first petitioner and Rs.1 lakh each to the petitioners 2 to 5.” It clarified that the compensation was awarded “for the mental agony, trauma, defamation and harassment suffered at the hands of the respondents. The award of compensation is restricted as a measure of self-restraint while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.” It expressly stated that “this will not preclude the petitioners from availing civil law remedies against the erring officers. The State is at liberty to recover the said amount from the respondents, if it deems fit, after adopting due procedure.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. T. Asaf Ali, Advocate; Smt. Laliza T.Y., Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri. Gracious Kuriakose, Additional Director General of Police; Sri. C.K. Suresh, Advocate; Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, Senior Government Pleader; Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu, Senior Advocate; Sri. Shanavas Nalakath Randupurayil, Advocate; Sri. Ajeesh K. Sasi, Advocate; Smt. Pooja Pankaj, Advocate; Sri. Y. Jafar Khan, Senior Government Pleader

Case Title: V.K. Thajudheen & Others v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:88675
Case Number: WP(C) No. 9494 of 2019
Bench: Justice P.M. Manoj