“Proximate-Trigger Liability” for Custodial Deaths
Commentary on Prema Haththel v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 CGHC 23811-DB)

1. Introduction

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s division bench decision in Prema Haththel v. State of Chhattisgarh confronts the perennial problem of custodial deaths in India. The petitioner, a 49-year-old mother, invoked the Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 following the death of her 27-year-old son, Suraj Haththel, while in police custody at Korba. Although the State’s judicial-inquiry report attributed the death to myocardial infarction (heart attack) allegedly unrelated to physical violence, the post-mortem revealed multiple fresh injuries. The petitioner sought:

• Transfer of investigation to an independent agency (CBI);
• Supply of critical documents and CCTV footage;
• Public-law compensation consonant with Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa;
• Any other appropriate relief.

The core issues before the Court were therefore two-fold: (1) Whether the State could disclaim liability by showing that the immediate medical cause of death was a heart attack; and (2) The quantum and nature of monetary compensation, if any, that should follow a finding of constitutional wrong.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Rejecting the State’s attempted exculpation, the bench—per Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha—held that unexplained injuries and missing CCTV footage established a breach of the deceased’s fundamental right to life under Article 21. Applying public-law principles of strict liability developed in Nilabati Behera, D.K. Basu and allied cases, the Court:

• Concluded that custodial torture was at least a proximate trigger of the heart attack, making the State strictly liable.
• Awarded exemplary damages of INR 2,00,000 to the petitioner, payable within eight weeks, with 9 % interest thereafter.
• Directed the State (Home Secretary & DGP) to ensure prompt payment and sent a copy of the order for compliance.
• While not expressly transferring the investigation to CBI, the Court underscored the State’s duty to furnish all requested records and hinted at adverse inferences from the manipulated CCTV evidence.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, (1990) 1 SCC 422
   Established State liability for tortious acts of police in excess of authority. The Court quoted passages reinforcing that compensation may be awarded for police brutality.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993 (2) SCC 746
   Cornerstone for constitutional compensation under Article 32/226. The judgment’s elaboration on compensation as a public-law remedy distinct from private-law damages formed the bedrock of the present decision.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., 1997 (1) SCC 416
   Laid down guidelines to prevent custodial violence. The present Court invoked custodial violence strikes at the rule of law to underscore the gravity of missing CCTV footage and injuries.
4. Malkiat Singh v. State of U.P., 1998 (9) SCC 351; Ajab Singh v. State Of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 521
   Both awarded lump-sum compensation in custodial death cases. They served as quantitative reference points.
5. Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC 658
   Affirmed that victims of unnatural deaths in custody—or their kin—require compensation, irrespective of the victim’s criminal profile. Provided normative force to the bench’s conclusion.

3.2 Legal Reasoning and Development of “Proximate-Trigger Liability”

The Court’s analysis progressed along three logical axes:

1. Fact-based inference of violence & cover-up
   • Post-mortem injuries: multiple abrasions, lacerations, and a comminuted patella fracture were inconsistent with a simple fall.
   • CCTV gap: Footage mysteriously stopped at 2:47 a.m.; no proof of power outage was supplied despite magistrate’s request. The Court relied on the adverse-inference rule (omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem).
2. Normative standard of liability

   Even assuming the medical immediate cause was cardiac arrest, the custodial assault created a stressful environment that acted as a proximate trigger, rendering the State liable for exacerbating a medical vulnerability. This is a subtle but noteworthy shift: the High Court re-articulates strict liability to cover deaths where police action is not the direct physiological cause but an operative causal link—hence “Proximate-Trigger Liability.”

3. Public-law compensation as deterrence

   Emphasising the need for a deterrent effect, the bench reiterated that the award is not akin to private-law damages but exemplary in nature, aimed at civilising public power.

3.3 Potential Impact on Future Jurisprudence

• Lower evidentiary threshold – The “proximate trigger” concept may reduce the burden on petitioners who struggle to prove direct causation between torture and death, especially where medical reports cite natural causes.
• CCTV preservation duty – The judgment implicitly recognises a positive obligation on police to preserve electronic evidence; failure leads to adverse inference and liability.
• Quantum debate reignited – While the Court awarded only ₹2 lakh (lower than some precedents), it links quantum to deterrence. Future benches may adopt a sliding scale pegged to victim’s age, earning capacity and egregiousness of police conduct.
• State policy reform – Expect administrative circulars in Chhattisgarh on uninterrupted power-backup for police CCTV systems, timely release of post-mortem reports, and compulsory independent investigation in deaths with missing footage.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Public-Law Compensation – A remedy for breach of constitutional rights provided by constitutional courts, distinct from traditional tort damages. No need for elaborate evidence on pecuniary loss; focus is on vindicating rights and deterring the State.
• Sovereign Immunity – The outdated doctrine that the State cannot be sued without its consent. Since Nilabati Behera, courts hold it inapplicable when fundamental rights are violated.
• Adverse Inference (Spoliation) – If a party suppresses or destroys evidence under its control, courts presume the evidence would have gone against that party.
• Myocardial Infarction – Medical term for heart attack. The Court treats it as an immediate cause but not necessarily the sole legal cause of death.
• Proximate-Trigger Liability – Newly articulated standard where police misconduct need not be the medical cause; it suffices that it triggered or aggravated a condition leading to death.

5. Conclusion

The verdict in Prema Haththel reinforces the judiciary’s constitutional role as sentinel on the qui vive, expanding custodial-death jurisprudence in three respects: establishing “proximate trigger” as a causal threshold, sternly condemning manipulation of CCTV evidence, and reiterating that compensation functions as a public-law deterrent rather than mere solace. Although the quantum awarded is modest, the principles articulated will likely reverberate through subsequent litigation, tightening the noose around custodial impunity and compelling police administrations to adopt preventative safeguards. In the broader canvas of human-rights enforcement in India, the decision underscores yet again that the arc of constitutional morality bends—however slowly—towards accountability.