Facts
- A Bangladeshi woman was gangraped by Railway employees in
- Railway premises. The Supreme Court held that even though the victim was a foreign citizen, she was entitled to protection of right to life under Article 21. The Central Govt, was held liable to pay compensation to the Victim
- It is also contended that for claiming damages for the offence perpetrated on Smt. Hanuffa Khatoon, the remedy lay in the domain of private law and not under public law and, therefore, no compensation could have been legally awarded by the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
Principles
- Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1295]
- it was held that the term “life” indicates something more than mere animal existence. The inhibitions contained in Article 21 against its deprivation extend even to those faculties by which life is enjoyed.
- In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [AIR 1984 SC 802]
- it was held that the right to life under Article 21 means the right to live with dignity, free from exploitation.
- The distinction between “public law” and “private law”
- A Regd. Society v. Union of India [AIR 1999 SC 2979]
- Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has been given the power and jurisdiction to issue appropriate writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose.
- Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [AIR 1983 SC 1086]
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty [(1996) 1 SCC 490] has held “rape” as an offence which is violative of the fundamental right of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
