<h2>Supreme Court Verdict on Illegal Detention</h2>
<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the apex judicial body in India that interprets the Constitution and settles disputes between the Union and States (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on 29 May 2026 directed the State of Rajasthan to pay <strong>Rs 11 lakh</strong> as compensation to <strong>Daudayal</strong>, who was kept in custody for 24 days after a court order for his release.</p>
<h3>Key Developments</h3>
<ul>
<li>Daudayal’s conviction (1967) was upheld in 2021; he applied for permanent parole in Dec 2023.</li>
<li>Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 required him to complete three regular parole stages; his request was rejected in Jan 2024.</li>
<li>The Rajasthan High Court, on 5 Nov 2024, ordered his release on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and two sureties of ₹50,000 each.</li>
<li>Despite compliance, he remained incarcerated; a habeas corpus petition led to his release on 6 Dec 2024.</li>
<li>Daudayal claimed the 24‑day delay violated his fundamental rights and sought compensation; the Supreme Court awarded Rs 11 lakh.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Important Facts</h3>
<p>The Court observed that once a judicial order for release is issued, the State must execute it immediately unless a higher court stays the order. The delay was attributed to bureaucratic indecision about filing an appeal, not to any legal stay. The judgment cited landmark cases such as <span class="key-term" data-definition="Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar — a 1995 Supreme Court case that recognized monetary compensation for violation of personal liberty under Article 21 (GS2: Polity)">Rudul Sah</span>, <span class="key-term" data-definition="Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir — a 1995 case reinforcing the right to compensation for unlawful detention (GS2: Polity)">Bhim Singh</span>, and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa — a 1993 decision upholding compensation for illegal detention (GS2: Polity)">Nilabati Behera</span>. The Court reiterated that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 21 — guarantees the right to life and personal liberty; any deprivation must follow due process of law (GS2: Polity)">Article 21</span> includes the right to compensation for its violation.</p>
<h3>UPSC Relevance</h3>
<p>This case illustrates several core concepts tested in the UPSC syllabus:</p>
<ul>
<li>Judicial review and the hierarchy of courts (Supreme Court, High Courts).</li>
<li>Fundamental rights, especially the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 21 — protects life and liberty; courts have expanded it to include the right to a speedy trial, privacy, and compensation for unlawful detention (GS2: Polity)">Article 21</span>.</li>
<li>Public law remedies such as monetary compensation for rights violations.</li>
<li>Procedural safeguards like <span class="key-term" data-definition="Habeas corpus — a writ that challenges unlawfu
Loading page, please wait…