Which of the following observation was not made by the court through J. S. Verma J. (as he then was) in Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960?
A. The award of compensation in a proceeding under article 32 or article 226, is a remedy available in public law
B. The remedy is based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental right
C. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is not applicable in case of violation of fundamental rights
D. The compensation payable shall be ex-gratia
Answer: Option C
This Question Belongs to Law >> Constitution Of India
Join The Discussion
Comments (2)
Chief Election Commissioner of India may be removed by
A. Resolution of cabinet by two third majority
B. Resolution of both houses
C. On recommendation of Chief Justice of India
D. None of these
The largest committee of Parliament of India is
A. Public Accounts Committee
B. Estimates Committee
C. Committee on Public Undertakings
D. Joint Parliamentary Committee
A. Only 1
B. Only 2
C. Both 1 and 2
D. Neither 1 nor 2
A. 3 months
B. 6 months
C. 6 weeks
D. 15 days
option D is correct, Compensation is not ex gratia (i.e. gratuitous or discretionary). The Court emphasized that it is a legally enforceable obligation, not mere generosity from the State.
Correct answer is (D) Because compensation granted under articles 32 and 226 is not ex-gratia. The State is liable to pay compensation in violation of any fundamental right .
The Doctrine Of Sovereign Immunity is not applicable where the Fundamental right of a person is breached (in this case, Petitioner's son met a custodial death.)