Illegal Detention: Supreme Court Awards ₹11 Lakh Compensation for Illegal 24-Day Incarceration

The Supreme Court has held that the State cannot keep a person behind bars merely because it is still deciding whether to challenge a court order directing his release.

Holding that an individual's liberty cannot be sacrificed to bureaucratic delays, the Court awarded Rs 11 lakh in compensation to a Rajasthan convict who was kept in prison for 24 days despite a high court order granting him permanent parole.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih said the liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter and the State cannot continue curtailing it because of slow administrative processes in deciding whether to file an appeal against a judicial order.

Can the State delay a prisoner's release while deciding to file an appeal?

Answering the question in the negative, the Bench held that the principle of "obey first, appeal later" must govern such situations. It directed the Rajasthan government to compensate the appellant, Daudayal, after finding that his continued detention was illegal.

Rejecting the State's contention that it was considering filing an appeal against the order granting permanent parole, the Bench observed, "In our considered view, the principle of 'obey first, appeal later' ought to have been applied. Going a step further, it is well settled that mere preferring of an appeal would not, by itself, operate as a stay of the order impugned therein".

Court stressed that accepting such an argument would effectively make a person's liberty dependent on the State's administrative decision on whether or not to file an appeal. "That cannot be countenanced," it said.

How did the illegal detention occur?

The appellant had sought compensation, arguing that State officials who "take the law in their hands should be made accountable".

He contended that despite a statutory provision and the high court's order granting him permanent parole, he was illegally kept in prison for 24 days, violating his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

He also relied on Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, which provides that any person who has been unlawfully arrested or detained is entitled to compensation.

The State of Rajasthan, however, argued that the high court's order granting permanent parole was contrary to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. According to the State, since the order was erroneous and the government was considering challenging it, the release directions could not be communicated to the concerned authorities in time.

The State further contended that the appellant had never been released on the three earlier paroles required under the Rules and was therefore not entitled to permanent parole.

The Bench rejected both submissions. It noted that the State had never challenged the single judge's order granting permanent parole and could not question its legality at such a belated stage.

"We are of the considered view that such a contention must be forcefully negated for the simple reason that the respondent State has never, on its own, challenged the findings of the learned single judge. That being the case, it is not open for the respondent State to raise a question regarding the legality of the order at this belated stage," the Bench said.

When does detention become illegal?

Examining the legal position, Court observed that even where a law permits detention, it becomes illegal if the procedure adopted is not just, fair and reasonable. Illegal detention would also include situations where the power to detain is exercised arbitrarily, for an improper purpose or in bad faith.

The Bench reiterated that a judicial order remains binding unless it is stayed, modified or set aside by a superior court. Merely filing, or even proposing to file, an appeal does not automatically suspend the operation of the order.

Referring to Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit (1973), Court noted that the binding character of a high court order does not diminish merely because an appeal has been sought or is under consideration.

Applying the principle to the present case, the Bench observed, "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".

Why was compensation awarded?

Court held that once permanent parole had been granted and the sureties had been verified to the satisfaction of the competent court, the appellant's continued incarceration amounted to illegal detention.

"Once parole had been granted and sureties produced to the satisfaction of the concerned court, the non-release becomes illegal detention," the Bench said.

Noting that the verification of sureties had already been completed and that there was still an unexplained delay in releasing the appellant, Court acknowledged that official procedures may require some time. However, it emphasised that the State must ensure that its administrative processes do not negatively affect an individual who has secured his liberty.

Accordingly, the Bench held that the appellant was entitled to compensation for the 24 days of illegal custody and directed the Rajasthan government to deposit Rs 11 lakh directly into his bank account.

Case Title: Daudayal Vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: May 29, 2026