PCS-J Question: The Court can provide compensation for violation of Fundamental Rights." Analyze this statement in the light of emerging principle of liability of State.? Sonia Mishra Question Sat, Dec 18, 2021, at ,02:56 PM Answer- Fundamental rights-Part 3 (Art. 12-35) of the Constitution Contains Fundamental rights which are known as Magna Karta of the Constitution of India. Fundamental Rights were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachment of the power delegated by them to their Government. Individuals require constitutional protection against the State. Fundamental rights are protected against State action distinguished from infringement of such rights from Private parties. In P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India, AIR 1952 SC 59, Supreme Court held that Fundamental rights are not available against wrongful individual's acts, they were intended to safeguard against government action. State’s liability for violation of Fundamental right Article 21 of the Indian Constitution prohibits the state from depriving a person of his or her life and liberty unless it follows a legal procedure. To broaden the definition of "life," it now includes all aspects of life that make it meaningful, complete, and living, as well as culture, tradition, heritage, and personal liberty, all of which have a very broad meaning. These provisions impose a negative deed on the State, and in light of constitutional provisions such as Directives Principles of State Policy, it has been interpreted to be imposing a positive obligation on the State to ensure better enjoyment of life and individual dignity. The Supreme Court has upheld and guaranteed the fundamental rights that have been promised. The Supreme Court, under Article 32, and the High Court, under Article 226, have rendered the defence of sovereign immunity not only ineffective but also null and void, as it conflicts with constitutionally guaranteed rights. The right to pay monetary compensation for violations of the law is justified in light of the removal of governmental immunity regarding Fundamental rights, particularly Article 21. For the first time, the Supreme Court was faced with a conundrum in the Rudul Shah case, deciding whether or not to give compensation for a violation of Article-21's right to life and personal liberty. In Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 2003 SC 4567, the Supreme Court held that the Court has the power to award monetary compensation in appropriate cases where there has been a violation of the Constitutional right of citizens. Following this judgement, the Supreme Court was called upon to award damages for violations of basic rights in subsequent cases. In Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, (1985) 4 SCC 677, the Court awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner as compensation for the violation of the constitutional right of personal liberty under Art. 21 of the Constitution. Again in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Headquarter, (1989) 4 SCC 730, It was held that the State was liable to pay compensation and accordingly directed to Government to pay 75,000/- as compensation to the family of the deceased. Similarly in Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1990 SC 513, the Supreme Court directed to Delhi administration to pay compensation to the mother of the victim. In, State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil, (1991)2 SCC 373, Supreme Court directed for payment of compensation but held a police officer was not personally liable as he acted as an official. In Chiranjit Kaur v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 1, The Court awarded the widow of the deceased compensation and Special Family Pension and Children allowance. Similarly in Shakuntala Devi v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, (1995) 2 SCC 369, The court held the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking liable for the negligence and awarded compensation of ex-gratia amount to the widow and her minor children and in Kewal Pati v. State of U.P., (1995) 3 SCC 600, Court directed the Government to pay compensation to the widow and children of the deceased. These cases are the authority for the legal proposition that the Union or the State Government would be liable for wrongful acts committed by their officers in violation of Fundamental Rights. Conclusion- For violations of Article 21, the Union and State governments would be liable for wrongful conduct performed by their employees in the course of employment. In Nibati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960, the Court outlined the rules governing the State's liability for payment of compensation, as well as the distinction between this liability and the legal liability for payment of compensation for the tort committed. If no other effective means of redress are available, the Court will award monetary compensation for violations of basic rights by the state or its employees under the strict liability concept.