Compensation in habeas corpus writ
Article 102 of the Constitution mandates to this court to enforce fundamental rights that has conferred by Part III of our Constitution and if this court ever finds infringement any of such right by any action of any state machinery it will certainly enforce those rights as per Article 44 of the Constitution through 102 thereof. That very power cannot be confined within the "ambit of the term of the rule" issued rather this court can exercise any of those five forms of writ at the time of disposal of the rule if it ever finds at the hearing and that of from the materials on record that the party aggrieved deserves enforcement of other fundamental rights that has been infringed other than what he sought initially. [73 DLR 134]
Article 102 of the Constitution confers power on us to make directions or orders or writes in any of the form of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto whichever this court finds appropriate for the enforcement of fundamental right guaranteed by Part III of our Constitution at the time of disposal of the rule. [73 DLR 134]
There has been no standard policy to measure the amount of compensation. In our jurisdiction and that of Indian jurisdiction in appropriate case, the amount has been fixed keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances and it has been left exclusively to the discretion and prorogation of the court to exercise such power. On the date of passing judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner basing on our previous enquiry, apprised this court the detenue is a benaroshi weaver used to earn more than Taka eight thousand per week. If we for arguments' sake take this earning for consideration it then comes nearly Taka 20,80,000 for the last 05(five) years that comes 260 weeks (52 × 5) he remained in jail. From the foregoing discussion where the determination of compensation has been left to the discretion of this court and from the above idea of his probable earning during his incarceration, we thus estimate the amount to be justified if it is at Taka 20,00,000 (twenty lakh) as compensation for the detenue to be borne by the highest authority of police force that is, the respondent No. 4 because undoubtedly rather admittedly his subordinate police officials are found responsible for the wrong confinement of the detenue. [73 DLR 135]