This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Overview
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that the State is absolutely liable for the unnatural death of a prisoner in its custody — even where the death is a suicide — and has awarded ₹10 lakh as compensation to the deceased’s mother. The Court also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame guidelines for assessing compensation in custodial-death cases.
- Case: Prema Devi v. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and 5 others
- Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 91 — Neutral Citation 2026:AHC-LKO:13651-DB
- Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla
- Date: 23 February 2026
Facts
The petitioner’s son had earlier been arrested in a case under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He was released on bail and was later re-arrested in February 2024 for non-appearance before the trial court.
On 20 February 2024 — roughly two weeks after the re-arrest — he was found hanging inside District Jail, Pilibhit. The post-mortem recorded the cause of death as “asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging,” and the inquest concluded suicide, with no evidence of custodial violence. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had recommended ₹3 lakh as compensation. The mother approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking enhanced compensation.
What the Court Held
1. Absolute liability of the State. The Court held that “the State is absolutely liable for the unnatural death of the deceased, as an amplified duty is cast upon the State” to protect the life of a person in its custody under Article 21 of the Constitution. This liability is strict — it does not require the family to prove torture, negligence or a specific wrongful act by jail authorities. A prisoner does not shed the fundamental right to life and dignity at the prison gate, and the State’s custody carries a heightened, non-delegable duty of care.
2. Suicide does not break the chain of State responsibility. The Court treated a custodial suicide as a custodial death attracting State liability. The self-inflicted nature of the death did not absolve the State, because the duty of care extends to taking reasonable steps to prevent a prisoner from harming himself.
3. Constitutional compensation as a public-law remedy. The bench observed that “there is no express mandate in our Indian Constitution for the grant of compensation for unlawful detention or custodial death,” yet reaffirmed that constitutional courts possess writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 to award monetary compensation for a proven violation of fundamental rights. This is a public-law remedy distinct from, and in addition to, any civil suit for damages.
4. Quantum and a direction to frame guidelines. The Court awarded ₹10 lakh and directed the State Government to frame guidelines for determining compensation in custodial-death cases — drawing on parameters such as the deceased’s age, income and number of dependants, on lines similar to the multiplier method used under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Precedents Relied On
The judgment is anchored in the established line of Supreme Court authority on custodial death and constitutional compensation:
- Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 — compensation under Article 32 for custodial death, rejecting the defence of sovereign immunity in public law.
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 — guidelines to prevent custodial violence and the State’s accountability for the safety of persons in custody.
- Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 — monetary compensation as a remedy under Article 21 for deprivation of liberty.
- Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) — directions on prison reform and prisoners’ welfare.
Takeaway
Two features distinguish this decision. First, it extends strict State liability to a custodial suicide: the family need not prove torture, negligence or any wrongful act by jail staff, because the duty of care in custody includes taking reasonable steps to stop a prisoner from self-harm. Second, the direction to frame compensation guidelines on a Motor Vehicles Act-style multiplier imports a structured, parameter-based method — age, income, dependants — into a field that High Courts had assessed ad hoc. The ₹10 lakh award also signals that an NHRC recommendation (here ₹3 lakh) does not cap what a constitutional court may grant under Article 226.
Useful Resources
- LiveLaw — report of the judgment
- Verdictum — Prema Devi v. State of UP (2026:AHC-LKO:13651-DB)
- Indian Kanoon — Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
- Indian Kanoon — D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.