A Digest of Case Law on the Human Rights of Women - Asia Pacific ...

Chairman, Railway Board and others v Mrs. Chandrima Das and others (India)
not be liable to pay compensation to the victim for a variety <strong>of</strong> reasons. They argued that
the victim was not an Indian national and therefore not protected by the Constitution; that
the rapes were acts <strong>of</strong> individual persons who alone should be liable to pay compensation
and that neither the Union <strong>of</strong> India nor the Railway Board should be vicariously liable for
their acts in these circumstances; that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to award
damages under Article 226 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution as any compensatory remedy can only be
awarded in private law not public law proceedings; and finally that Mrs Chandrima Das,
who brought the action on behalf <strong>of</strong> the victim, did not have legal standing as there was
nothing personal to her involved in the petition.
The respondent argued that rape was a not a violation <strong>of</strong> an ordinary right but a
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution as established by precedent
law. The respondent relied on precedent to argue that the concept <strong>of</strong> legal standing had
been significantly expanded by the courts, thus allowing public-spirited persons to bring
actions in the public interest.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that a private law remedy (i.e. compensation for personal
injury) is available for an action brought in public law when the injury is inflicted by
government agents and involves the violation <strong>of</strong> the fundamental right to life with human
dignity under Article 21 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution. The Court held that rape is a violation <strong>of</strong> a
fundamental right and not an ordinary right and accordingly a public law remedy was
appropriate in this case. This remedy was available even though a suit for damages could
also have been filed under private law.
The Court held that Mrs Chandrima Das did have legal standing to bring the action
on behalf <strong>of</strong> the victim. It held that Indian constitutional jurisprudence has broadened
the principle <strong>of</strong> locus standi to allow public-spirited persons to act in matters <strong>of</strong> public
interest. As this case involved criminal actions by railway employees which resulted in the
violation <strong>of</strong> the victim’s fundamental rights, it therefore qualified as a petition in the public
interest. Further, as Mrs Chandrima Das had filed the petition seeking other reliefs such as
the eradication <strong>of</strong> anti-social criminal activities at Howrah Railway Station, the true nature
<strong>of</strong> the petition was that <strong>of</strong> one filed in the public interest. The Court also held that as there
was nothing personal to her involved in the proceedings, the petition was valid.
The Court held that Hanuffa Khatoon was entitled to compensation despite the fact that she
was not an Indian citizen. It referred to a number <strong>of</strong> international conventions that vest in
a “person” certain fundamental rights regardless <strong>of</strong> nationality. The Universal Declaration
<strong>of</strong> Human Rights 1948, [“UDHR”] protects basic human rights for all persons in its
Preamble and in Articles 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. Article 2, in particular, ensures the entitlement <strong>of</strong>
rights and freedoms guaranteed by the UDHR without any distinction as to race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
52