False Imprisonment: Position Under Tort and IPC

Introduction to False Imprisonment: Civil and Criminal Perspectives in India

False imprisonment refers to the total restraint of a person’s liberty, for however short a time, without lawful excuse. According to Ratanlal & Dhirajlal,

To establish false imprisonment, two essential elements are necessary:

1. The total restraint of a person’s liberty, which can be:
   (a) Actual, such as physical confinement, or
   (b) Constructive, where authority is merely shown to restrain the person.
2. The detention must be unlawful, and the duration of detention does not matter.

From the outset, false imprisonment raises two important questions:

• Is it a tort or a crime?
  False imprisonment is recognized both as a tort under civil law and as a punishable offense under the Indian Penal Code, reflecting its dual role in providing compensation and imposing penal sanctions.
• Who bears liability: The State or the individual?
  Over time, courts have clarified that state officials can be held liable for constitutional violations, giving rise to the doctrine of constitutional tort, while judicial officers enjoy immunity unless malice is proven. Additionally damages can be levied from private parties for false complaints.  

These dilemmas lie at the heart of evolving jurisprudence, shaping how personal liberty is protected in India today.

False Imprisonment and Constitutional Remedies: The Case of Trimbak Waluba Sonwane

One of the most illustrative cases is Trimbak Waluba Sonwane v. State of Maharashtra and Others. The petitioner was illegally kept in jail for 42 days even after being acquitted, despite clear court orders directing his release. No other case was pending that could justify continued detention. The prolonged incarceration happened solely due to the carelessness and negligence of jail authorities in carrying out the court’s order.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking compensation for the violation of his personal liberty under Article 21. The Court referred extensively to the landmark case Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, where the petitioner had similarly been illegally detained by police officers.

The authoritative definition of false imprisonment was repeated:
“False imprisonment is correctly defined as complete deprivation of liberty for any time, however short, without lawful excuse. It is common ground that false imprisonment is a type of trespass to the person and that it is actionable without proof of special damage.”

The Court awarded Rs. 10,000 in compensation, considering the petitioner’s lost earnings under the Minimum Wages Act and the suffering caused by the loss of liberty and family responsibilities. The judgment also emphasized that the State must recover this amount from the responsible officers’ salaries and take disciplinary action.

This case highlights the concept of a constitutional tort , a developing legal principle where state officials can be held liable for violating constitutional rights. Unlike private torts, constitutional torts focus specifically on breaches of constitutional guarantees, especially the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

The Court’s decision reinforced that awarding compensation for illegal detention is not simply a civil remedy but a constitutional duty, ensuring state accountability in protecting the rule of law and individual freedom.

Notable Cases and Their Impact on False Imprisonment Doctrine

Several important cases have helped shape the modern understanding of false imprisonment in India.

In Major P. Gopalakrishna and Others v. Union of India and Others, although not directly about false imprisonment, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of State liability. It held the State responsible not only for illegal detention but also for acts of gross negligence by its officials. The case made it clear that torts like battery, assault, and false imprisonment by public authorities are constitutional torts because they infringe on fundamental rights. Official immunity does not apply when actions are taken in bad faith or with malice.

In Parbatabai Sakharam Taram v. State of Maharashtra and Others, a minor tribal woman was wrongfully detained for several years without lawful process, falsely implicated based only on suspicion. Despite repeated pleas of innocence, her case remained unresolved until an NGO intervened. The Court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation, though this amount seemed disproportionately low considering the prolonged and harsh detention. The judgment also exposed a systemic flaw, as it only directed the formation of a Special Investigating Team rather than mandating compensation recovery from the responsible officials.

The case of P. Sujanapal Aged vs State of Kerala clearly demonstrated the difference between judicial and executive liability. The petitioner was arrested in a private dispute and later acquitted. The Court held that judicial officers are immune from civil liability when acting in good faith and within their jurisdiction unless malice or corruption is proven. Meanwhile, police officers and the State were held liable for false imprisonment, underscoring that executive officials face direct accountability, while judicial immunity remains strong.

Finally, in M. Abubaker and Others v. Abdul Kareem, the plaintiff was arrested based on a false complaint driven by personal animosity. The Court ruled that malice and lack of reasonable cause were proven, making the first defendant liable for unlawful arrest and detention. A compensation of Rs. 50,000 was awarded, reaffirming that false imprisonment is a constitutional violation, independent of the criminal case outcome.

Together, these cases show how false imprisonment has evolved from a private law wrong into a constitutional tort focusing more on State accountability.

Conclusion

False imprisonment holds a unique place where civil, criminal, and constitutional law meet in India. Over time, Indian courts have recognized it as not just a private wrong but a constitutional tort, reinforcing the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Judgments such as Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Trimbak Waluba Sonwane v. State of Maharashtra make it clear that unlawful detention, however brief, triggers strict liability without needing proof of intent. The doctrine of constitutional tort holds the State and its officials responsible for violating fundamental rights, while judicial immunity remains protected unless malice or corruption is shown.

Still, inconsistencies in compensation and accountability mechanisms show the need for clearer and more uniform guidelines.