Punjab and Haryana High Court awards Rs 3 lakh compensation for unlawful detention

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has awarded Rs 3 lakh compensation to a man kept in custody beyond his sentence. The direction came as the court admonished the State of Punjab and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for "injustice" and "ineptitude" before declaring that such unlawful detention constituted "acts of constitutional disregard that demand accountability, redressal, and systemic correction."

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted that State-inflicted injustice - such as unlawfully extending a person's custody beyond the sentence imposed by a competent court - was a serious breach that could not be condoned under any circumstances.

"The State, as the custodian of constitutional values, bears the highest responsibility to uphold the rights of its citizens which includes even those who are convicted of crimes. When the State itself becomes the violator of liberty through negligence or apathy, it sets a dangerous precedent that erodes faith in the justice system," Justice Brar observed.

The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by one Satnam Singh, convicted for possessing 25 kg of poppy husk categorised as an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act. He was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment. But the custody certificate's perusal revealed that he had already spent two years, three months, and 29 days in custody.

"The sentence awarded by a trial court comes after careful consideration of all relevant facts, legal arguments, and a dedicated sentencing hearing. It reflects a calibrated judicial decision that balances the gravity of the offence with the rights of the convict. Therefore, when a person is kept in custody beyond the term of the sentence awarded, it directly undermines the due process of law. Such extended incarceration, not sanctioned by any judicial order, amounts to a disregard for the authority of the court and the rule of law," Justice Brar asserted. The Bench was assisted in the matter by amicus curiae Vasudha Sharma.

The court added that the fundamental right to liberty had been compromised not because of judicial mandate but the appellant's poverty and systemic failures.

"The law must be blind to wealth or status and, in line with the constitutional spirit, treat all individuals equally. However, in practice, disparities often emerge, especially between the rich and the poor. If the appellant had been in a better financial position, he or his family could have easily afforded legal representation to keep a tab on his detention and secure a timely release. However, lack thereof left him to remain in custody longer than legally sanctioned, at the mercy of the jail officials," Justice Brar observed.

Referring to the DLSA's inertia, the Bench asserted: "This Court would be remiss to ignore the ineptitude displayed by the authority in this regard.

The concerned agency is required to demonstrate promptness so as to meaningfully ensure that convicts like the present appellant do not suffer unnecessary incarceration in already overcrowded prisons, for the time lost cannot be truly compensated."

Before parting, Justice Brar directed the State Government to pay the Rs 3 lakh compensation to the appellant within eight weeks. The court clarified that the compensation would not bar the appellant from pursuing civil remedies for further damages.

Justice Brar left the door open for further action by permitting the State to recover the compensation amount from the erring officials responsible for the unlawful detention.