In a significant ruling championing individual liberty, the Supreme Court of India has declared that the state cannot curtail a person’s freedom by delaying their release under a court order due to slow bureaucratic decision-making. A division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the rights of a convicted person do not weigh less on the scales of justice and ruled that the “obey first, appeal later” principle must apply to state authorities. Concluding that the appellant’s detention for 24 days after a High Court release order was unlawful, the Supreme Court awarded him Rs 11,00,000 in compensation to be paid directly by the State of Rajasthan.
Background of the Case
The case of the appellant-convict, Daudayal, originated from an old criminal matter dating back to 1967. On December 8, 1988, the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Alwar, sentenced Daudayal to four years of rigorous imprisonment for offences under Sections 148, 448, 304 Part II read with Sections 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The conviction and sentence were eventually confirmed in 2021 by the High Court, leading to his arrest on December 23, 2021.
On December 3, 2023, having served a major portion of his sentence, Daudayal applied for permanent parole. The state rejected his application on January 18, 2024, on the grounds that he had not previously applied for regular parole. Daudayal challenged this rejection before a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, who allowed his petition on November 5, 2024. The High Court directed his release on parole upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs 50,000 each. At this point, the appellant had already served over three years and two months of his four-year term.
Although the sureties were verified and approved on November 13, 2024, prison authorities failed to release Daudayal. He was forced to approach a Division Bench of the High Court through a Habeas Corpus petition, which finally ordered his immediate release on December 6, 2024. Consequently, Daudayal spent 24 days in custody after his sureties were verified, leading him to petition the Supreme Court for Rs 8,00,000 in compensation for illegal detention and the violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant-convict argued that the 24 days spent in prison after the judicial release order constituted illegal detention. Relying on Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, his counsel urged that state officials who take the law into their own hands must be held accountable. The appellant supported his claim by citing established precedents on state liability and compensation, including DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, Khatri (2) v. State of Bihar, and Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar.
Conversely, the State of Rajasthan contended that the Single Judge’s order granting permanent parole was erroneous and violated Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, the State argued that parole is intended to maintain family and social ties and does not suspend the sentence. They asserted that the three prior stages of regular parole must be utilized to monitor a prisoner’s conduct before permanent parole can be granted. Crucially, the State admitted that because the release order was “erroneous,” they were considering challenging it, which caused the delay in informing the prison officials. They further argued that the case of a convict cannot be equated with that of an innocent person, an undertrial, or an acquitted individual.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court first addressed what constitutes illegal detention. Synthesizing the terms, the Court observed:
“The deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of provisions of the Constitution is illegal detention.”
The Bench firmly rejected the State’s attempts to challenge the correctness of the Single Judge’s parole order at this late stage. Pointing out that the State had never appealed the original order, the Court emphasized that a judicial order remains in full force unless stayed, modified, or set aside. Preferring an appeal does not automatically stay an order. Citing Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, and Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather, the Court stressed that “right or wrong,” a court order must be obeyed.
Tracing the rich constitutional history of the writ of Habeas Corpus from Clause 39 of the Magna Carta (1215) and the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 to judgments like Cox v. Hakes and Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India, the court established that the remedy is designed to provide immediate relief from any form of unlawful confinement.
On the issue of public law compensation, the Court reviewed its own landmark rulings:
- In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, the Court had previously noted that: “Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation.”
- In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Court clarified that public law remedies serve a broader purpose: “The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights.”
- Recent orders, such as Sohan Singh @ Bablu v. State of Madhya Pradesh and S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, further cemented that substantial monetary amends are appropriate public law remedies for state-inflicted violations of liberty.
Applying these principles to Daudayal’s situation, the Court held that once the surety verification process was completed, the appellant’s continued confinement lacked any legal basis. The Court strongly criticized the State’s explanation that it was considering an appeal, stating:
“Once the detenue has been ordered to be released, the same has to be followed no matter what. The only scenario in which it would not be so done was if a superior Court has granted stay in the matter. Just because a person had been convicted does not mean that his rights weigh less on the scales of justice.”
The Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and declared that the 24 days Daudayal spent in custody was indeed an illegal detention. Emphasizing that individual liberty cannot be treated as a trivial matter, the Court ordered the State of Rajasthan to pay the appellant Rs 11,00,000 (Eleven Lakhs Only) in compensation. The Court directed that the compensation amount be deposited directly into the bank account of the appellant.
Case Details
Case Title: Daudayal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 5036 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: May 29, 2026
