Mrs. K.S. Yaomila vs The State Of Manipur

Wlcome to new blog. This blog is based on the legal facts discussed in Mrs. K.S. Yaomila vs The State Of Manipur decided on 6 January, 2020 by Manipur High Court.



In Somi Kamkar Vs. State of Manipur & ors, WP(C) No.894 of 2017 it was held that Compensation can be broadly divided into two- one, a compensation that can be claimed in private law and two, a compensation that can be claimed in public law for violation of fundamental rights.

In Somi Kamkar Vs. State of Manipur & ors, WP(C) No.894 of 2017 it was held that The law relating to payment of compensation on account of the violation of fundamental rights, is no longer res integra.

Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.

The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A court of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities.

Article 32 is not powerless to assist a person when he finds that his fundamental right has been violated. He can in that event seek remedial assistance under Article 32. The power of the court to grant such remedial relief may include the power to award compensation in appropriate cases.

It is not in every case where there is a breach of a fundamental right committed by the violator that compensation would be awarded by the court in a petition under Article 32.

The High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is competent to award compensation in cases where the fundamental rights, guaranteed in the Constitution of India, have been infringed by the State authorities.

it is difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations and that in the Indian context, various factors like educational qualification, nature of job, past performance, scope of higher salary, the expenditure that the claimant has incurred and is likely to incur, family dependence, inflation etc. should be taken into consideration.

================
Please donate for my notes.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Legal interpretations from Ayodhya Verdict Part 8

Image
  =================== Jay Shree Ram! These are some notes from Ayodhya Verdict regarding legal interpretations of certain statutory provisions: Read more Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Principle as to personality of institutions.- Apart from natural persons and corporations, which are recognised by English law, the position under Hindu law is that if an endowments is made for a religious or charitable institution, without the instrumentality of a trust, and the object of the endowment is one which is recognised as pious, being either religious or charitable under the accepted notions of Hindu law, the institution will be treated as a juristic person capable of holding property. – Justice B K Mukhergea Upon making an endowment, the donor relinquishes all claims to the endowed property. The property now vests in the pious purpose at the heart of the endowment which is recognised as a legal person. The idol forms the material manifestation of th...
Read more

Forfeiture of Citizenship in USA

  UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs M/s. GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD. Forfeiture of Citizenship in USA: The aforesaid proposition has also been confirmed by the House of Lords in R v. H, [2003] 1 ALL ER 497. 17.19 In Kennedy v Mendoza¬Martinez, 372 US 144 (1963), the Supreme Court of the United States, while concerned with the constitutionality of legislation that imposed forfeiture of citizenship on those who had left or remained outside the United States during wartime to evade military service, had laid down the following relevant factors to classify forfeiture law: (a) Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (b) Whether it has been historically regarded as a punishment; (c) Whether it is only applicable where there has been a finding of scienter (that is, a finding that an act has been done knowingly and intentionally); (d) Whether its operation promotes the traditional retributive and deterrent aims of punishment; (e) Whether the behaviour t...
Read more

Legal Interpretation from Ayodhya Verdict Part 9

Image
  =================== Jay Shree Ram! These are some notes from Ayodhya Verdict regarding legal interpretations of certain statutory provisions: Read more Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Where there exists an express deed of dedication, the legal personality vests in the pious purpose of the founder. The idol is the material embodiment of the pious purpose and is the site of jural relations. There are instances of the submergence or even destruction of the idol inspite of which it has been held that the legal personality continues to subsist. Even if a testator were to make a dedication to a religious purpose but the idol did not exist at the time the dedication was made or the manifestation of the divine was not in the form of the idol, but in the form of some other object of religious significance, the legal personality would continue to vest in the pious purpose of the dedication itself. A Swayambhu deity is a manifestation of God tha...
Read more