Judgment :- This writ petition deals with the claim of a poor rape victim for compensation on account of Sexual assault involving a superior police officer and the resultant mental torture and agony; and even after twenty five years from the date of incident, she is still in the corridor of this Chartered High Court seeking justice. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 9 Lakhs as compensation on account of the criminal act committed by the second respondent police officer. 3. The affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition reads thus: Factual Matrix: .(a) The petitioner was residing in Nagal Kulam village within the limits of Nanguneri Police Circle in the District of Tirunelveli. The second respondent was the Inspector of Police Nanguneri Circle in the year 1984. .(b) There was a dispute between the petitioner and her sister-in-law with respect to the residential house where she was residing. Her sister-in-law was in forcible occupation of a portion of the house and her act was nothing but criminal trespass. The petitioner along with her husband went to the residence cum office of the second respondent on 6. 1984 to prefer a complaint of forcible occupation of her house by her sister-in-law. The petitioner reached the office cum residence of the second respondent at about 6 p.m. The matter was reported to the second respondent who in turn told the petitioner that her sister-in-law had already given a complaint against her and her husband through an advocate and the said advocate would be coming soon and as such, her husband was asked to leave the place. The second respondent assured her husband that he would finish the enquiry and send the petitioner as early as possible. The said version was believed by her husband and accordingly, he left the place. .(c) The second respondent was stage managing a drama and it was with a specific purpose that her husband was sent away. Immediately after the departure of husband, the second respondent by show of force committed rape and she was allowed to go to her house only in the next morning. .(d) The petitioner made a complaint to the District Superintendent of Police on 6. 1984 itself. The complaint was registered in Cr. Immediately after the departure of husband, the second respondent by show of force committed rape and she was allowed to go to her house only in the next morning. .(d) The petitioner made a complaint to the District Superintendent of Police on 6. 1984 itself. The complaint was registered in Cr. No. 555 of 1984 under Section 376 IPC on the file of the Palayamkottai Police Station. Since the accused was the Inspector of Police, copy of the complaint was sent to the Sub Collector, Cheranmadevi for enquiry. .(e) The Sub Collector made enquiry on 16. 1984 and submitted his report. .(f) In the meantime, the second respondent filed a petition before the High Court in Crl. M.P. No. 4176 of 1984 to quash the First Information Report (FIR) in Cr. No. 555 of 1984 on the ground that it was not permissible to register FIR against a police officer before the submission of enquiry report by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The said petition was allowed by the Court and the FIR was quashed as per Order dated 30.7.1984. In the meantime, report was submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the second respondent filed W.P. No. 8 of 1985 to quash the said report. The said petition was allowed and the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to conduct fresh enquiry after giving opportunity to the second respondent. Accordingly, Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry on 19. 1988. The petitioner was examined twice and other witnesses were also examined after four years of the incident. Accordingly, report was submitted to the Government. The Government of Tamil Nadu accepted the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and issued G.O. Ms. No. 1244 dated 27. 1989 whereby and whereunder direction was issued to launch criminal proceedings as well as departmental enquiry against the second respondent. The said Government Order dated 27. 1989 was challenged by the second respondent in W.P. No. 1209 of 1989 and the Writ Petition was dismissed on 3. 1990. .(g) Meanwhile, the second respondent was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. .(h) In pursuance of the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1244, Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmadevi filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1990. The petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. 1990. .(g) Meanwhile, the second respondent was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. .(h) In pursuance of the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1244, Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmadevi filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1990. The petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. The Judicial Magistrate conducted enquiry and during the course of enquiry, the petitioner as well as her husband tendered evidence. .(i) In the meantime, the second respondent filed Crl. M.P. No. 5977 of 1990 before the High Court to transfer P.R.C. No. 1 of 1990 from the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri to Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli for reasons best known to him. The said application was allowed and the case was transferred as prayed for by the second respondent. .(j) The petitioner filed application before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli not to entertain the matter as she apprehended that justice would not be rendered in case the matter was taken up by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli. The matter was taken up by the petitioner before the Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court granted interim stay of the Order of transfer and ultimately, the appeal was allowed and the Order of transfer was recalled. The Supreme Court also directed the trial Court to dispose of the matter within three months. The case was subsequently transferred from Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Nanguneri to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and later to the Assistant Sessions Court, Thenkasi on administrative grounds. The Sessions case was registered in S.C. No. 2628 of 1990. .(k) Before the transfer of the case from Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli summons was not served to the witnesses for more than a year in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1990. The petitioner used to go to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Nanguneri on daily basis to ascertain as to whether summons were duly served. It was found that summons to the second respondent was not served deliberately. In view of these happenings, petitioner and her husband was made to travel about 70 kms up and down every day except on holidays. .(l) During the course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined out of 15 witnesses cited by the prosecution. In the meantime, the second respondent filed Crl. In view of these happenings, petitioner and her husband was made to travel about 70 kms up and down every day except on holidays. .(l) During the course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined out of 15 witnesses cited by the prosecution. In the meantime, the second respondent filed Crl. O.P. No. 116 of 1995 for a direction to the prosecution to conclude the trial with examination of five witnesses and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court as per Order dated 27. 1995. The order of dismissal was taken up in Crl. R.C. No. 687 of 1995 and the revision was dismissed as per Order dated 27. 1995 and the trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial. .(m) The second respondent with a view to delay the trial, filed number of miscellaneous petitions, criminal revision petitions as well as Writ Petitions before various courts including High Court and all those petitions were dismissed and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. .(n) The second respondent filed Crl. M.P. No. 1498 of 1996 to set aside the Order in Crl. R.C. No. 687 of 1995 and the said petition was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court directed the trial Court to give top priority to this case and ordered to conduct day-to-day trial. Accordingly, the case was taken up during 12. 1996 to 16. 1996. .(o) Government of Tamil Nadu appointed Thiru. Jayaprakash, Additional Public Prosecutor of Tirunelveli as Special Public Prosecutor in this case on an application filed by the petitioner. The said Special Public Prosecutor had to attend the Court at Tirunelveli in the morning and before the Court at Thenkasi in the afternoon. However, the Special Public Prosecutor was not allowed travel expenses and as such, the petitioner had to engage a taxi for taking the Special Public Prosecutor to the Court. The Government was only paying fees and all other expenses was borne only by the petitioner. The Court at Tirunelveli was 130 kms away from Thenkasi. Therefore, the petitioner has spent considerable amount by way of transport as well as food and other expenses. .(p) The second respondent filed Crl. R.C. No. 508 of 1996 challenging the propriety and legality of the Order passed in Crl. The Court at Tirunelveli was 130 kms away from Thenkasi. Therefore, the petitioner has spent considerable amount by way of transport as well as food and other expenses. .(p) The second respondent filed Crl. R.C. No. 508 of 1996 challenging the propriety and legality of the Order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 504 of 1996 in S.C. No. 407 of 1993 rejecting his prayer to recall P.W.1 for further cross examination and for supply of documents. .(q) The High Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the second respondent on 13. 1996 and accordingly, he was remanded on 16. 1996. However, on 17. 1996, he produced on Order, stated to be a bail Order, to the effect that he was enlarged on bail as per Order in Crl. O.P. No. 4915 of 1996 by the High Court. Subsequent enquiry found that the bail Order was a forged one and the High Court has not issued any such Order directing release of the second respondent on bail. .(r) The factum of production of a forged bail order has come to limelight only on account of the enquiry conducted by the petitioner and for the said purpose, she was compelled to come to Madras very frequently. There was also a contempt proceeding initiated by the High Court against the second respondent in the matter of production of forged bail order. .(s) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thenkasi convicted the second respondent for the offence under Section 343, 376(2)(a)(c) read with Section 201 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of eleven years. Appeal preferred by the second respondent was also dismissed and as such, he was confined in the Central prison. .(t) The heinous act committed by the second respondent ruined the life of the petitioner. .The beastly act of the second respondent has brought about shame, humiliation, misery and torture to her and she was not in a position to move freely in the society with dignity. She was compelled to fight for justice for a period of fifteen years. The amount of mental torture and humiliation underwent by the petitioner cannot be explained in words. In order to conduct the matter and to see that the second respondent is punished, the petitioner had to sell all her belongings including the residential building. She was compelled to fight for justice for a period of fifteen years. The amount of mental torture and humiliation underwent by the petitioner cannot be explained in words. In order to conduct the matter and to see that the second respondent is punished, the petitioner had to sell all her belongings including the residential building. .(u) The Government of Tamil Nadu is vicariously liable for the criminal act committed by the second respondent and as such, the Government is bound to pay compensation. The Government by placing reliance on G.O. Ms. No. 602 dated 14. 1998, paid a sum of Rs. One lakh as compensation. The said amount was not the actual compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get from the Government. The petitioner estimated the compensation at Rs. Ten lakhs and after adjusting the amount of Rs. One lakh paid by the Government, prayed for an Order directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. Nine lakhs as compensation. Views of the Government: 4. The first respondent has filed a counter in answer to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. In the counter, there was no denial of any of the acts as narrated in the affidavit of the petitioner. The first respondent admitted that the second respondent was functioning as Inspector of Police and his residence was used as the office of the Inspector of Police and that he has committed the heinous crime of rape against the petitioner. The various proceedings narrated in the affidavit of the petitioner were also admitted by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, the Government has already issued an Order in G.O. Ms. No. 602 dated 14. 1998 and as per the said Order, victims like the petitioner are entitled only to a sum of Rs. One lakh as compensation. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. One lakh was paid to her. The first respondent further contended that in matters like this, payment was made by the Government only as a matter of compassion and as such, there was no question of considering the point as to whether the amount paid was inadequate. Accordingly, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. The second respondent has not filed counter with reference to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. Discussion: 6. The second respondent was holding a superior position in the police force. Accordingly, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. The second respondent has not filed counter with reference to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. Discussion: 6. The second respondent was holding a superior position in the police force. He was the Inspector of Police of Nanguneri circle in the year 1984. The office of the second respondent was functioning from his official residence. The fact that the petitioner approached the second respondent for preferring a complaint against her sister-in-law, the subsequent conduct of the second respondent in sending her husband away from the place and the rape committed by him are all admitted facts. Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry in the matter and a complaint was also registered in accordance with the Order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The tactics adopted by the second respondent to stall the proceedings and to escape from the clutches of law are all matters of record. In fact, there was no denial of any of those matters in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and instead, the first respondent was only confirming the details furnished by the writ petitioner. 7. Since the second respondent was a responsible police officer of the area, petitioner approached him to redress her grievances. The petitioner was accompanied by her husband and the second respondent very cleverly sent him away. The petitioner was a helpless lady and her helplessness was taken advantage of by the second respondent. She was subjected to sexual abuse and after committing rape, she was permitted to go only in the following morning. The second respondent had tried his level best to avoid criminal prosecution as evident by the various proceedings initiated by him. In any case, justice was done ultimately and the second respondent was punished. The criminal appeal filed by him in C.A. No. 691 was dismissed by this Court as per judgment dated 1. 2004. The entire issue was discussed by the learned Judge in the appellate judgment which would throw light on the heinous acts committed by the second respondent. 8. The basic facts regarding the criminal act committed by the second respondent is not in dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider those aspects once again. 9. 2004. The entire issue was discussed by the learned Judge in the appellate judgment which would throw light on the heinous acts committed by the second respondent. 8. The basic facts regarding the criminal act committed by the second respondent is not in dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider those aspects once again. 9. The core question is as to whether the compensation claimed by the petitioner is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Police and their commitment to rule of law: 10. The second respondent was the custodian of law and he was entrusted with the solemn duty of crime management. He was duty bound to protect the life, liberty-and property of the people. Police stations are opened even in villages for the purpose of preserving peach and to maintain Law and Order. When the police themselves become law breakers, common man would be in a state of lawlessness. It would lead to a situation where anti-social elements would take up policing and jungle raj would be the result. Police force is entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining Law and Order and to extend helping hands to the people. Law enforcing agency must first abide by law. Only then they can expect people to respect law. Police should be the role model for others. To put it otherwise, there should be a change in their mind set. 11. Police force, which is expected to come to the aid of citizenry, very often becomes the law unto themselves. Reports regarding custodial violence, sexual abuse involving police men, tuning investigation to save the influential accused and other acts of complicity in crimes by the police are really alarming. Police force as a whole cannot be blamed. It is only some of the black sheep in the force which alone are responsible for creating such a situation and to bring bad name to the entire force. It is also true that the police force is functioning in a very difficult situation. But that will not give them the right to violate law, for the enforcement of which, the very police force was formed. The attitude and functioning of the police force requires a sea change. The slogan, “Police at your service” should be accompanied by the slogan “Police is a public servant; ever ready to serve the people.” As Mr. But that will not give them the right to violate law, for the enforcement of which, the very police force was formed. The attitude and functioning of the police force requires a sea change. The slogan, “Police at your service” should be accompanied by the slogan “Police is a public servant; ever ready to serve the people.” As Mr. Justice V.R. KRISHNA IYER puts it: “Policing, like justicing, has therefore to be at the service of the people commanding the credibility of the community at large without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Independence and accountability with commitment to the Rule of law, are as much the non-negotiable qualities of the invigilating, investigating police force as of the ‘robed brethren’ on the bench. If the investigative process fails, if the police presence to guard Law and Order is not functionally successful, the adjudicatory apparatus collapses and our adversarial system of justice becomes dysfunctional. The safety of society, sans police integrity, accountability, transparency and efficiency, suffers illusion and unreality.” (Mr. Justice V.R. KRISHNA IYER in “RANDOM REFLECTIONS).” Right to life without sexual abuse: 12. Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a salutary provision of our constitution. Right to life as enshrined in Article 21 is not a mere animal existence. Right to life includes life without sexual exploitation and free from sexual abuse and assault. Right to lead a dignified life in the society is also a basic right of an individual within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. Rape is no longer considered as an individual matter of the victim. It is a crime against the very society. Life of a rape victim would be not so smooth in the society. Even though the victim was no way responsible for the unfortunate incident, the society looks upon her with a jaundice eye. The victim is put to an undeclared social boycott for no fault of her. In short, life of a rape victim is miserable in the society. 14. The State was expected to protect the life, liberty and property of the people. The State has entrusted with the police, the solemn function of enforcing the law and Order and preventive action to minimize the crime in the society. In short, life of a rape victim is miserable in the society. 14. The State was expected to protect the life, liberty and property of the people. The State has entrusted with the police, the solemn function of enforcing the law and Order and preventive action to minimize the crime in the society. When the officers of the State indulge in such unlawful activities like rape of an innocent lady, who visited the office of the Inspector of Police, the state is vicariously liable for such illegal action of its officers. State was not expected to stand on technicalities in matters like this. State is expected to protect the innocent police officers from harassment. At the same time, appropriate punishment should be given to the miscreants and it is no matter he is a superior officer of the police force. Life, dignity and reputation of an individual cannot be measured in terms of money. .15. The details furnished by the petitioner clearly shows the steps taken by her to bring the second respondent before law. The second respondent was occupying a superior position in the police force. The petitioner is a village lady from a poor background and without proper education. The factual averments as found in the affidavit, clearly shows that the petitioner was put to considerable difficulties during the entire period between the date of the incident and the date of conviction of the second respondent. She lost her shelter also in her crusade to punish the second respondent. .16. When the first respondent was convinced that the incident was shocking to the conscience of the society, they should have taken appropriate steps to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner. The Order issued by the Government for payment of exgratia in other cases cannot be applied straightaway in a case like this. The poor victims who approach the Government for payment of compensation on account of the unlawful acts of the officers of the Government cannot be turned away with a readymade answer that the Government Order permits only a sum of Rs. One lakh payable, as ex-gratia, and beyond which it was not possible to pay, whether it be a case of custodial torture of rape. .Legal principles: .17. In Chairman, Rly. One lakh payable, as ex-gratia, and beyond which it was not possible to pay, whether it be a case of custodial torture of rape. .Legal principles: .17. In Chairman, Rly. Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988 : (2000) 2 SCC 465 : (2000) 2 MLJ 26 , the Supreme court referred to the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against women by the General Assembly of the United Nations as per resolution dated 20.12.1993. The resolution defines Violence against women’ as any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm on suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.” The Supreme Court observed that those International Covenants and Declarations as adopted by the United Nations have to be respected by all signatory States. The relevant paragraph would read thus at p. 35 of MLJ: .“22. The International Covenants and Declarations as adopted by the United Nations have to be respected by all signatory States and the meaning given to the above words in those Declarations and Covenants have to be such as would help in effective implementation of those rights. The applicability of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles thereof may have to be read, if need be, into the domestic jurisprudence.” 18. In Chairman, Rly. Board v. Chandrima Das, (supra), the issue before the Supreme Court was regarding the direction given by the High Court to pay compensation to a Bangaladeshi National who was gang raped by many, including railway employees. The Supreme Court on an evaluation of the legal position, indicated that the protection of Article 21 was available even to a foreign national and rejected to contention of the State and held that the railway was vicariously liable for the wrong committed by its employees. The relevant observation reads thus at p. 39 of MLJ: “40. Running of the Railways is a commercial activity. Establishing the Yatri Niwas at various railway stations to provide lodging and boarding facilities to passengers on payment of charges is a part of the commercial activity of the Union of India and this activity cannot be equated with the exercise of sovereign power. Running of the Railways is a commercial activity. Establishing the Yatri Niwas at various railway stations to provide lodging and boarding facilities to passengers on payment of charges is a part of the commercial activity of the Union of India and this activity cannot be equated with the exercise of sovereign power. The employees of the Union of India who are deputed to run the Railways and to manage the establishment, including the railway stations and the Yatri Niwas, are essential components of the government machinery which carries on the commercial activity. If any of such employees commits an act of tort, the Union Government, of which they are the employees, can, subject to other legal requirements being satisfied, be held vicariously liable in damages to the person wronged by those employees. Kasturi Lai decision therefore, cannot be pressed into aid. Moreover, we are dealing with this case under the public law domain and not in a suit instituted under the private law domain against persons who, utilizing their official position, got a room in the Yatri Niwas booked in their own name where the act complained of was committed.” (emphasis supplied) 19. In Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2006 SC 1267 : (2006) 3 SCC 771 , the Supreme Court observed that rape is a crime against the basic human rights and as such, is violative of the victim’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The observation reads thus: “6. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female it is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends hers self-esteem and dignity-it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys, as noted by this Court in Bodhisattwa Gauttam v. Subhra Chakraborty, the entire psychology of a woman and pushes here into deep emotional crises. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys, as noted by this Court in Bodhisattwa Gauttam v. Subhra Chakraborty, the entire psychology of a woman and pushes here into deep emotional crises. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim’s most cherished fundamental right, namely, the right to life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos.” 20. In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922 : (1996) 1 SCC 490 , the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a rape victim and while deciding the issue as to whether the accused can be compelled to pay maintenance to the victim during the pendency of the criminal case, the Court observed thus: “9. Unfortunately, a women, in our country, belongs to a class or group of society who are in a disadvantaged position on account of several social barriers and impediments and have, therefore, been the victim of tyranny at the hands of men with whom they, fortunately, under the Constitution enjoy equal status. Women also have the right to life and liberty; they also have the right to be respected and treated as equal citizens. Their honour and dignity cannot be touched or violated. They also have the right to lead an honourable and peaceful life. Women, in them, have many personalities combined. They are mother, daughter, sister and wife and not play things for centre spreads in various magazines, periodicals or newspapers nor can they be exploited for obscene purposes. They must have the liberty, the freedom and, of course, independence to live the roles assigned to them by Nature so that the society may flourish as they alone have the talents and capacity to shape the destiny and character of men anywhere and in every part of the world. 10. Rape is thus not only a crime against the person of a women (victim), it is a crime against the entire society. 10. Rape is thus not only a crime against the person of a women (victim), it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is only by her sheer will-power that she rehabilitates herself in the society which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim’s most cherished of the Fundamental rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21. To many feminists and psychiatrists, rape is less a sexual offence than an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating women. The rape laws do not, unfortunately, take care of the social aspect of the matter and are inept in many respects.” .21. In M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, AIR 2001 SC 3660 : (2001) 8 SCC 151 , this issue before the Supreme Court was regarding the direction given by the High Court to pay a sum of Rs. Five lakhs as compensation to the parents of each of the children who died on account of drowning while they were in the custody of the school authorities. While considering the maintainability of the Writ Petition for payment of compensation, Supreme Court indicated the march of law on the subject of public law remedy thus: .“28. Currently judicial attitude has taken a shift from the old draconian concept and the traditional jurisprudential system – affectation of the people has been taken note of rather seriously and the judicial concern thus, stands on a footing to provide expeditious relief to an individual when needed rather than taking recourse to the old conservative doctrine of the civil Court’s obligation to award damages. As a matter of fact the decision in D.K. Basu has not only dealt with the issue in a manner apposite to the social need of the country but the learned Judge with his usual felicity of expression firmly established the current trend of “justice-oriented approach.” Law Courts will lose their efficacy if they cannot possibly respond to the need of the society-technicalities there might be many but the justice-oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality since technicality cannot and ought not to outweigh the course of justice.” .22. The Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 , dealt with in-extenso the public law proceedings for payment of compensation and the obligation of the High Courts to grant appropriate relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment reads thus: .“17. It follows that ‘a claim in public law for compensation’ for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is ‘distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort’ resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights.” .23. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (supra) case, Mr. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights.” .23. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (supra) case, Mr. Justice A.S. ANAND, in His Lordship’s concurring judgment, indicated the jurisdiction of the High Court to pay compensation in the matter regarding violation of fundamental rights thus: .“35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings.” 24. The Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta, AIR 2002 SC 3560 : (2002) 7 SCC 478, again indicated the obligation of Courts to meet the social aspiration of the people thus: “9. The Courts having the obligation to satisfy the social aspiration of the citizens have to apply the tool and grant compensation as damages in public law proceedings. Consequently when the Court moulds the relief in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights and grants compensation, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. But it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the Court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 225 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. But it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the Court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 225 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. The Court in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, therefore, would not award damages against, public authorities merely because they have made some order which turns out to be ultra vires, or there has been some in-action in the performance of the duties, unless there is malice or conscious abuse. Before exemplary damages can be awarded it must be shown that some fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the public functionaries and that the sufferer was a helpless victim of that act.” 25. The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., AIR 1997 SC 610 : (1997) 1 SCC 416 , indicated the changing trend in the matter of award of damages on account of interference with the life of the people. The observation reads thus: “45. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the Courts too much, as the protector and custodian of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the Courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A Court of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim – civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the Court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at time perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the breadwinner of the family.” 26. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (supra) case, the Supreme Court also indicated that claim for compensation for the wrong committed was on account of principle of strict liability and as such, the principle of sovereign immunity was not available in such cases. The relevant paragraph would read thus: “54. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (supra) case, the Supreme Court also indicated that claim for compensation for the wrong committed was on account of principle of strict liability and as such, the principle of sovereign immunity was not available in such cases. The relevant paragraph would read thus: “54. Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer, in the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal Courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do. The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortuous act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no straitjacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit.” .27. In C. Thekkamalai v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit.” .27. In C. Thekkamalai v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Home Department and 2 Others, (2006) 1 MLJ 108 : (2006) W.L.R. 13, a Division Bench of this Court was considering the claim made by a rape victim for compensation. The learned single Judge directed payment of a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation. When the matter was taken up in appeal, the Division Bench considered the helplessness of the rape victim and the deep mental crisis and directed the Government to pay a sum of Rs. Five lakhs as total compensation. .28. The factual matrix of this case clearly shows the infringement of the fundamental right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The second respondent was a police officer during the material time. The State is vicariously liable for the illegal acts committed by him. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the State is bound to pay compensation to the petitioner. .The quantum: 29. The next question is with regard to the determination of quantum payable to the petitioner by way of compensation. 30. The unfortunate incident was on 6. 1984. The petitioner has suffered the maximum on account of the inhuman conduct of the second respondent. She was subjected to physical as well as mental torture. Her life is the society was miserable. She was also subjected to all kinds of humiliation as the society in such a remote village was not prepared to accept a rape victim. The petitioner has virtually conducted the prosecution till the conviction of the second respondent on 9. 1996. The petitioner was engaged in a battle for a period of twelve years. In order to procure resources for conducting the proceedings, the petitioner was compelled to sell her house and property. Even then she was determined to fight for awarding maximum punishment for the offence to the second respondent in a legal manner. The payment of Rs. One Lakh was made by the first respondent only in the year 1998. In order to procure resources for conducting the proceedings, the petitioner was compelled to sell her house and property. Even then she was determined to fight for awarding maximum punishment for the offence to the second respondent in a legal manner. The payment of Rs. One Lakh was made by the first respondent only in the year 1998. The petitioner withstood the challenge posed by the second respondent and though she was nothing before a mighty and influential person like the second respondent, here determination made here to fight, which ultimately, culminated in getting suitable punishment to the second respondent for the sin committed by him. The petitioner is in fact a role model for the women folk. Though she is a villager and without any resources at her command, she was not prepared to accept defeat. She was determined to enforce rule of law. The first respondent being a welfare State, should have appreciated the efforts taken by the petitioner. If there are woman like the petitioner, the tendency of the people like the second respondent to indulge in such heinous crime would not recur. 31. Petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. Nine lakhs as compensation, as according to her, she was entitled to a minimum sum of Rs. Ten lakhs. However, Government has paid a sum of Rs. One lakh. As such, after deducting the said sum, petitioner has claimed a sum of Rupees Nine lakhs. The factual matrix as projected by the writ petitioner clearly shows that she was subjected to humiliation. Her right to dignity and reputation were affected and she was projected and branded as untouchable in the society. Though by way of granting monetary relief, it is not possible to regain her dignity and reputation, the payment at least would enable the petitioner to maintain herself and her family. 32. The incident was on 6. 1984. The criminal case took about 12 years and the second respondent was convicted on 9. 1996. The first respondent paid a sum of Rs. One Lakh in 1998. The criminal appeal preferred by the second respondent was dismissed by-this-Court on 1. 2004. The National Commission for Women, Government of India, in their communication dated 11. 1997 observed that as the offence was committed during the course of employment, the State of Tamil Nadu was vicariously liable for the tortuous acts of its employees. One Lakh in 1998. The criminal appeal preferred by the second respondent was dismissed by-this-Court on 1. 2004. The National Commission for Women, Government of India, in their communication dated 11. 1997 observed that as the offence was committed during the course of employment, the State of Tamil Nadu was vicariously liable for the tortuous acts of its employees. The petitioner has submitted series of representations to the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, there was no positive action at their end. 33. The quantum of compensation in a case like this cannot be estimated with precision or on the basis of structured formula. The injury to her body, mind, dignity and reputation are difficult to be measured in terms of money. The petitioner was only 28 years old at the time of incident. Her ambition to lead a normal happy life was shattered on account of the inhuman conduct of the second respondent. She withstood everything with a vow that the offender would not be allowed to flee from justice. Therefore, the entire background of the case has to be considered for arriving at the compensation. Accordingly, in consideration of the entire matter and background of the case, I am of the view that interest of justice would be sub-served if a sum of Rs. Eight Lakhs is awarded as compensation after adjusting the sum of Rupees One lakh already paid by the first respondent. 34. In the result, the first respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. Eight lakhs as compensation to the petitioner with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the writ petition. The said amount shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 35. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Disposal: Petition allowed.