Facts:
Rudul Shah was a man who was arrested for his wife's murder in 1953; he was in jail for 14 years and was released in 1982. This case was very highlighted in the media. As the case is all about the false imprisonment of this man as his imprisonment period was completed earlier in 1968 as he was declared innocent in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, on June 3, but still, he is there in jail, so after he was released, one PIL is filed of habeas corpus as here article 32 and 21 both got broke of a person.

Even the petitioner is asking for compensation and state-funded medical treatment. This case was held in the supreme court of India, and the judges here are Judges/Coram: Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Amarendra Nath Sen, and Ranganath Misra. This is the first case in India in which a victim is getting compensation because his constitutional rights are harmed. The date for the case was August 1, 1983.

Issue:
Issues in this factual matrix are as follows:

• Does Article 21 a fundamental right that is broken?
• Does habeas corpus PIL is valid?
• Should Rudul Shah use article 32?
• Does the petitioner who files a case is insane and if he is not, any insane persona
• Is the compensation which is getting enough?

Rules:
There are so many rules which are misused, and they are as follows:

• Article 21 is harmed because a violation is liberty has taken place.
• Illegal detention for 14 years
• Misusing the powers instead of doing their duty
• Wrongful allegations by jailors that the petitioner is insane

Analysis
According to my analysis, the person should get compensation because his fundamental right is called article 21: here, article 21 means that every person should have the right to protection of life. The right to personal liberty is not protected because of the false imprisonment of 14 years his liberty is also affected, so this is wrong according to law. If we talk about habeas corpus, PIL is right as here the person is in false imprisonment for 14 years, harming an individual's rights. No law of courts has the right to punish a criminal more than his crime.

Article 32:

Article 32 means everyone has the right to go to the apex court of India as if their breach of a fundamental right is there. So yes, here, Rudul shah has also had the right to use article 32, and according to my analysis and review, he is right because everyone should fight for their right.

Illegal detention by making him insane: here, the jailor has argued in the supreme court that the petitioner is insane, so he has been in medical treatment for 14 years, but the defendant is unable to prove that petitioner Rudul shah is insane as he doesn't have any medical proof regarding his mental problem.

So here, according to my analysis court should give punishment to these types of officers and jailors and even should take compensation from them as they are snatching someone's liberty by misusing the powers which they have, and not only this, they should also get punishment for the wrong allegations which hurt person's emotions and even it is legally wrong.

Economic or financial analysis: even after getting compensation, the victim will not be able to get his period back, so according to my research, even after getting compensation, he should get a pension every month, and with that, he will be able to live his future life.

Social point of view: after getting released from jail with economic stability, he also doesn't have mental or social strength, so he will not be able to adjust to his social background again. So no one is going to entertain him for a job as he is a criminal, and even after the judgment that yes, because of false imprisonment, he is in jail, society will not trust him, so the court should provide a job at least if they are not any pension so he can complete his basic needs.

Other Case Laws Which Are Similar To Rudal Shah Vs The State Of Bihar:

In Kasturilal Raliaram v. State of Uttar Pradesh[2], the Supreme Court overturned one of its prior decisions. The court previously granted immunity to the state for wrongdoings committed by its police officers, so preserving a state's sovereign immunity. Many people challenged the decision on two grounds: first, the state was granted sovereign immunity, which was incorrect because it was the state's responsibility to care for Kasturilal's seized things while he was on trial. Second, the appellant was not compensated for the damage he experienced due to the state's negligence loss of sovereign immunity was not far away, however, given the rising compensatory trend.

The court in the Bhagalpur blinding case attempted to amend its prior decision by holding the state responsible for its inhumane deeds. In the aforementioned case, state agents blinded 31 convicts with acid. The court declared it a flagrant violation of Article 21 and ordered the state to treat all detainees at its expense. In Nagendra Rao's case, the condition was deemed liable for its officers' incompetence, so no immunity was granted. The appellant's products, which included fertilizers and perishable goods, were taken by state officers in this case. When the appellant was finally found not guilty, he demanded his belongings. The items, however, perished due to the state official's neglect.

When a compensation suit was brought, the apex court found the state vicariously liable and awarded the appellant compensation. In another case, S.M. Hongray v. Union of India, fundamental rights were upheld before sovereign immunity.[3]. The army officers were found accountable for the deaths of two priests, and each wife received compensation of one lakh rupees.

Paschim Banga Khet Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996 SCC (4)37) (India). The decision was significant because it was the first time the Supreme Court ruled that the right to life includes a need to provide timely medical treatment to save a person's life.

According to Muralidhar (see below), the decision in Paschim Banga defines the right to emergency medical care for accident victims as a core minimum of the right to health. In the South African decision of Soobramoney v. Minister of Health, the Constitutional Court discussed and distinguished Paschim Banga.

In the following case of Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995 3 SCC 42), the Supreme Court acknowledged that state resources are limited and that lowering some employees' entitlements to medical benefits did not violate the Constitution (1997 (12) BCLR 1696 (CC)).
[6] Hazur Singh v. BihariLal, AIR 1993 Raj 51 (India).

Conclusion
Judgment of the court: The court sent the public authority notification of motivation, wondering why the solicitor was sentenced to 14 years in prison notwithstanding his vindication. It also schooled the state to explain why his response was significantly delayed. It proved to the public authority to ensure that he was of a shaky psyche.

The court also determined whether he was insane and provided a skeleton clinical record showing that he was being treated.[4] for it. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the claimant was insane when he was found not guilty. Similarly, he could not be delayed for an extended period of time, regardless of whether he was genuinely frantic when he was cleared.

The court then examined whether the applicant's request for assistance might be guided by its right to cure. Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and individual flexibility, would lose its value if the court was limited to delivering unlawful detainees on request without taking any measures to improve their circumstances, according to the court. The court ruled that.
"The right to pay is a palliative strategy for illegal instrument protests in the public good."

These public displays of illegal devices serve to pique public interest and offer the state power as protection." The remuneration is palliative, according to the court, because the right to life under Article 21 is more important. It further stated that under Article 32, the choice to uphold the legislative authorization power was transferred to the Supreme Court. The right mentioned in the third section of the Constitution is a fundamental right in and of itself. As a result, the court's most recent order requested that the state pay the petitioner 30,000 rupees as an interim measure, in addition to the 5,000 rupees already provided.

Every coin has two sides, so here is also the person who is a criminal as he murdered his wife. Still, he is not wrong in this petition as he is in false imprisonment for 14 years, and his fundamental right article 21 is broken right to liberty. But the best point here is he at least trusted the law and courts and filed a petition in the supreme court using article 32 against the state of Bihar without getting hesitated even though he is a criminal, he didn't take any wrong step, and I am glad that his trust is worth it and the court give him justice by compensating 35000 and 5000 was already paid. From this, we can conclude that we can trust the system. The thing we need to do is always be patient.

End-Notes:

1. Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar and Anr., AIR 1964 AP 382[1] Rudul Sah v. the State of Bihar (1983): case study, iPleaders, Rudul Sah v. the State of Bihar (1983): case study - iPleaders Law foyer, https://lawfoyer.in/rudul-sah-vs-state-of-bihar
2. Paschim Banga Khet Samity v. State of West Bengal,(1996 SCC (4)37) (India) https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2006/paschim-banga-khet-mazdoor...