WHAT SHOULD BE the parameter or formula to compensate a victim of custodial death has been a little implored and never concluded thought. On June 8, 2026, a bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat has given fundamental impetus to this issue in Smt. Noorjan Samshuddin Bhanvadiya v. State of Maharashtra. The judgement, which is well-crafted and progressive, has been authored by Justice Pitale.
From time to time, constitutional courts have come across cases of custodial deaths due to negligence of State machinery. It has been consistently held that in such situations monetary compensation is one of the ways to render justice, even if not complete justice. Courts, thus, have been giving compensation based on their own wisdom and leaving parties to claim their desired amounts from the civil courts, which of course has seldom happened. A victim who has already lost a family member and has fought a battle all the way to the Supreme Court, would hardly desire to resume his battle again from the start. One can also not lose sight of the fact that most of the victims of custodial deaths are either Dalits, Adivasis, or marginalised people, who lack resources to take up time and money demanding legal battle.
Background
The bench was dealing with a case of death in a State-run mental health facility, where the victim lost his life owing to a violent attack by a co-patient. The victim, who was suffering from schizophrenia, had been admitted to the facility on advice of a mental health expert. The family of the victim found that the staff-to-patient ratio was not according to standards. And so, his wife and children petitioned the Court and sought compensation under the public law remedy.
The State, which did not dispute the incident, maintained that it had done everything it could to salvage the situation. It also argued that under State policy, compensation was capped at five lakh rupees, of which one lakh had already been paid pursuant to the Lokayukta’s orders.
What the judgement held
As is noted in the judgment, amicus curiae Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, impressed upon the Court that a logical way of compensating the death in such a situation is to apply parameters as are provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It noted that under the 1988 Act, death is compensated based on a statutorily prescribed formula and the wrongdoer is required to compensate the dependents of the victim in accordance with it. There is no other law, which provides for a similar or better method to determine the compensation.
Accepting the suggestion of the amicus, the Court in its judgment held that there is no discernible formula or statutory framework to meet with such a claim of compensation. It held that, “…the quantum of compensation to be paid to the sufferers ought to be based on a logical process such as one recognised by Courts while determining monetary compensation in cases concerning motor accident claims”
Ultimately, the Court accepted the computation of compensation drawn by the amicus and directed its release in favour of the dependents of the victim. Further, noting that one of the children of the deceased victim also suffers from ninety percent disability, it granted an additional sum of five lakh rupees. In the end, the Court held that the State policy of providing specified amount of compensation is woefully inadequate.
Rethinking custodial accountability
In our prisons, we lose around two thousand lives annually. Deaths to due to various ailments and importantly due to lack of medical staff, including assault by co-prisoners and even due to torture of police is not new. Once a person is sent in judicial custody, it becomes the duty of the State to ensure that the person is provided with all such facilities as would require him to retain the same health he was in prior to his admission.
In the case of Varavara Rao, the Court had held that prison is not conducive to deteriorating health of the octogenarian and granted him bail. However, Father Stan Swamy in the same case, who was suffering from Parkinson’s died in custody, allegedly due to lethargic medical attention. In a very few cases, families muster courage to approach the courts. The issue of determining the formulae for custodial deaths had remained pending till date. None of the constitutional courts so far, took endeavours to consider this methodology. Hopefully, this judgment is followed across the country until some better mechanism is brought in. The next step would be to see how courts determine parameters for violations which do not lead to death.
