Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others, 2026

The petitioner, Prema Devi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking compensation for the unnatural death of her minor son while in District Prison Pilibhit.

The deceased, an undertrial in a POCSO case, died by suicide on 20 February 2024, hanging from the ventilator of a prison toilet.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had earlier recommended ₹3,00,000 as compensation, which was not paid due to inaction of the authorities.

The petitioner alleged that her son had been subjected to torture by police personnel in connection with illegal money demands, which ultimately resulted in his death.

The State argued that the death was a suicide, and there was no negligence, misconduct, or direct involvement on its part.

The Court observed that custodial deaths represent one of the most serious violations of fundamental rights, highlighting the State’s absolute duty to ensure life and dignity even for illegally detained individuals.

The Division Bench held that the right to life and human dignity under Article 21 is an intrinsic, inviolable, and omnipresent right, which applies even to individuals who are illegally detained by the State.

The State is absolutely liable for custodial deaths caused by acts or omissions of its authorities, including cases where the death occurs by suicide.

The Court emphasized that the State cannot evade responsibility by attributing the death to the mental state of the prisoner, as an amplified duty exists toward those in custody.

While referring to Supreme Court precedents such as Rudul Sah, Nilabati Behera, and D.K. Basu, the Court reaffirmed the principle of strict liability in custodial deaths, noting that the defence of sovereign immunity is unavailable.

The Court directed the State to pay ₹10,00,000 (Ten Lakh Rupees) as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased within three weeks.

It further instructed the U.P. Government to frame guidelines for awarding compensation in custodial death cases, recommending a methodology akin to the multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act, taking into account age, income, and dependents.

The Court mandated four preliminary steps to be strictly followed in all future custodial death cases are as follows.

Immediate Notification and Panchnama: The family members of the deceased must be informed immediately by jail authorities. A panchnama must be prepared on the spot with independent panchas, in accordance with Section 174 CrPC (corresponding Section 194 BNSS).

Post Mortem Examination: A post mortem must be conducted promptly, clearly mentioning the cause of death. The post mortem examination must be video-recorded in all custodial death cases.

Judicial Inquest: The judicial magistrate must prepare an inquest report under Section 176 CrPC (corresponding Section 196 BNSS), after considering witnesses, panchnama, and post mortem report.

Monetary Compensation: Compensation must be paid to provide solace to the next of kin, fixed by NHRC or appropriate authority, considering facts and circumstances of each custodial death.

Strengthens the principle of strict liability of the State in custodial death cases.

Affirms that fundamental rights cannot be denied to undertrials or illegally detained prisoners.

Provides clear procedural guidelines for immediate notification, post mortem, judicial inquest, and compensation.

Ensures that monetary compensation is just, reasonable, and timely, enhancing victim-family protection.

Encourages States to frame standardized compensation policies, similar to multiplier method in MVA claims, creating predictability and fairness.

Upholds Supreme Court precedents emphasizing remedy for deprivation of life or liberty as a constitutional obligation.