Introduction:

The Madras High Court, in a recent judgment, upheld the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, directing the Tamil Nadu government to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to a history-sheeter, R. Eswaran, for his illegal detention. The petitioner was detained under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act by the Dindigul District Collector on November 23, 2021, but the Advisory Board later found insufficient grounds for his detention. Despite the Board’s recommendation for revocation of the detention order on December 30, 2021, Eswaran remained in custody until March 17, 2022. Justice Anand Venkatesh, while rejecting the State’s argument that Eswaran’s criminal history disqualified him from compensation, reiterated that the fundamental right under Article 21 applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their character or past actions.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by counsel S. Karthik, argued that his detention from December 30, 2021, to March 17, 2022, was unlawful as it was not backed by any legal authority. He contended that the Advisory Board’s opinion invalidated the detention order, making his continued incarceration a violation of his fundamental right to life and liberty. Eswaran sought ₹10 lakh in compensation for the emotional and physical distress caused by his unlawful detention, asserting that the delay in implementing the Advisory Board’s recommendation reflected gross negligence on the part of the State.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan and Additional Public Prosecutor S. Ravi, defended the delay, arguing that procedural requirements led to the postponement of Eswaran’s release. The State claimed that no illegal detention occurred since the process of revocation was underway. Furthermore, the State highlighted Eswaran’s criminal history, citing 25 prior cases against him, and contended that his status as a history-sheeter disqualified him from receiving compensation. The respondents maintained that compensation should be reserved for law-abiding citizens and not extended to individuals with a history of criminal activity.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

Justice Anand Venkatesh, in a strongly worded judgment, rejected the State’s defense and emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty to all individuals without discrimination. The court remarked that the use of the word “person” in Article 21 is inclusive and does not distinguish between “good” and “bad” individuals. Justice Venkatesh observed that the State’s argument, suggesting compensation should be denied based on the petitioner’s criminal record, was untenable and violated the principles of equality and justice.

The court held that Eswaran’s continued detention beyond December 30, 2021, was illegal and constituted a blatant violation of his fundamental rights. Justice Venkatesh criticized the State for its failure to act promptly on the Advisory Board’s recommendation, stating that bureaucratic delays could not justify the infringement of constitutional rights. The court dismissed the respondents’ argument that procedural delays were unavoidable, noting that the State had ample time to process the revocation order but failed to do so.

Acknowledging the petitioner’s prolonged illegal detention, the court concluded that he was entitled to compensation. While the petitioner had sought ₹10 lakh, the court awarded ₹50,000, balancing the gravity of the violation with the State’s financial considerations. The judgment underscored that compensation serves as both a remedy for the victim and a deterrent against future violations of fundamental rights.