Continued incarceration after a judicial order directing release on parole, despite compliance with release conditions and in the absence of any stay, constitutes illegal detention attracting public law compensation under Art.21 Const. of India
Facts
The appellant was convicted under Ss.148, 448, 304 Part II r/w S.149 and S.323 IPC and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed in appeal and he was arrested in December 2021. He applied for permanent parole in December 2023, which was rejected on the ground that he had not availed the earlier stages of parole prescribed under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The High Court, by order dated 5 November 2024, allowed his writ petition and directed his release on furnishing a personal bond and sureties. Although he complied with those conditions and sureties were verified, he was not released. Only after a Habeas Corpus Petition was filed did the Division Bench direct his immediate release on 6 December 2024. The appellant claimed compensation for 24 days of detention after the release order. (Paras 2–4)
Issues Framed
Whether the appellant’s continued custody for 24 days after the order directing his release on parole amounted to illegal detention, and if so, whether he was entitled to compensation. (Para 6)
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Meaning of Illegal Detention
The Court held:
“The deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of provisions of the Constitution is illegal detention.” (Para 7)
Illegal detention includes custody unsupported by lawful authority, detention after expiry of authority, violation of mandatory procedural safeguards, or arbitrary exercise of power. (Para 7)
(b) Nature of Parole
After examining judicial precedents and the Rajasthan Parole Rules, the Court reiterated that parole is a conditional release intended to facilitate maintenance of social and family ties. It does not extinguish the sentence but allows the prisoner to remain outside prison subject to conditions. (Paras 8–8.2)
(c) “Obey First, Appeal Later”
The State argued that the Single Judge’s order granting permanent parole was contrary to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Parole Rules. The Court rejected this contention because the State had never challenged that order.
The Court held that a judicial order remains binding unless stayed, modified, or set aside. Mere contemplation of an appeal or administrative consideration of legal options cannot justify non-compliance. Referring to Atma Ram Properties, Karnataka Housing Board, Prithawi Nath Ram, and Mohd. Iqbal Khanday, the Court emphasized:
“Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed.” (Para 9)
(Para 9)
(d) Compensation for Violation of Liberty
The Court reviewed authorities including Rudul Sah, Bhim Singh, Nilabati Behera, Sebastian Hongray, S. Nambi Narayanan, and Sohan Singh @ Bablu, reiterating that monetary compensation is a recognized public law remedy for violation of Art.21 Const. of India. (Para 11)
The Court held that once parole had been granted and the sureties accepted, continued custody became illegal detention. Bureaucratic delay in deciding whether to challenge the order could not override personal liberty. (Paras 11–12)
Held
The appellant’s detention for 24 days after the order directing release on parole constituted illegal detention. The State violated his right to personal liberty under Art.21 Const. of India. Compensation of Rs.11,00,000 was awarded and directed to be deposited directly into the appellant’s bank account.
Ratio
Where a competent court directs release of a prisoner and the release conditions are satisfied, continued incarceration in the absence of a stay order amounts to illegal detention, and compensation may be awarded in public law for violation of Art.21 Const. of India.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 599
Decided on: 29 May 2026
Case Title: Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Augustine George Masih, J.