False Imprisonment
Introduction –
False imprisonment means wrongfully restraining someone with the intention of restricting such person or persons from exercising their freedom. For constituting such imprisonment, it is not necessary that the person is detained in the ordinary sense. Confining within four walls or stopping such a person from leaving the place where he/she is imprisoned itself amounts to false imprisonment. Such imprisonment is applicable to private and government detention.
Elements of False Imprisonment –
1. Willful Detention: The imprisonment made should be intentional, i.e., there should be an existence of an intention to detain such person or restrain them from exercising their freedom by confining them in any place.
2. Intentional: Any person who is imprisoned without any valid reason should be able to prove that the person who had detained him/her had done so with the wrong intention to falsely imprison them. Here, it is necessary to be proved that such an act was solely done for the purpose of stopping a person from exercising their freedom and wrongfully confining them.
3. Knowledge of the Plaintiff: There is no requirement or necessity that the plaintiff who alleges wrongful imprisonment by another person was aware of his restriction on his freedom at the time of such detention.
Defences for False Imprisonment –
1. Valid Arrest: Any person who is detained must be able to prove that such imprisonment was done wrongfully. The arrest or detention is considered valid if it was done for the implementation of legal provisions and there is enough probable cause that the person detained has committed any wrong.
2. Consent to Restraint: If the person who is detained gives his consent for such restraint or confinement on his own without any force, fraud, coercion, then such person is considered to have voluntarily given consent and cannot later claim false imprisonment.
3. Probable Cause: If the person who had detained the other proves that there was probable cause for such arrest then the person imprisoned cannot say that it was false imprisonment.
Remedies for False Imprisonment –
1. Action for Damages: In cases of false imprisonment, damages occur as a result of confinement. At the time of trial, the damages for false imprisonment are calculated and measured. There is no legal rule so far with respect to assessing the damages as such and it depends on the decision of the court. The major grounds for deciding the damages for such wrongful detention can be an injury suffered by the plaintiff either physically or mentally any humiliation and any other relevant loss.
2. Nominal and Compensatory Damages: As a general rule, the plaintiff is entitled to reclaim such amount that is considered and equitable for the purpose of damages, unless there arise any such circumstances where justifying any award for exemplary damages is not present.
3. Punitive, Exemplary, and Aggravated Damages: Punitive damages are awarded in those cases where the defendant had intentionally violated the rights of the plaintiff. Exemplary damages are provided when an abuse of power is done upon the plaintiff by the state. Aggravated Damages are awarded when the detention was offensive to the plaintiff.
4. Writ of Habeas Corpus: It is used for bringing before the court if the person is detained lawfully. So automatically the person will be released if the imprisonment was not lawful and was done with a wrong intention.
Case Law –
In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494, the plaintiff was arrested and detained under the custody of police for intentionally preventing him from attending a parliament session dated 11th September 1985. He was arrested on the grounds that his speech at one public gathering nearby the parade ground on 8th September 1985 was seditious. Also, he was not produced before the court until 13th September 1985 which led to losing his voting rights in the meeting held on 11th September. The plaintiff alleged that his right to vote has been infringed. The Supreme Court held that the detention of Bhim Singh was not lawful naming it as false imprisonment and that his freedom and his right to vote have been violated.
Conclusion –
No person be it an ordinary citizen or the government official can violate any right of any person as the right to freedom, right to life, and right to liberty has been granted under Article 20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and it cannot be repudiated even during emergencies. A person cannot be detained unless there is enough proof and probable cause of such arrest.
