death in a lock-up, does not by Itself provide any meaningful remedy to a person whose fundamental right to life has b e n infringed. Much mom weds to be done. While there is no exprws provleion in the Cons~tutlonof India for grant ot cornpensetion for violation of the fundamental right to Ilfe, the Supreme Court has judicially e w k d a dght to compensation in cases of established unoonstitutfonal deprivation of pe-1 liberty or 1b. The claim in public law for compensatlon for unconrtitutional deprivation of the fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is g w m b e d under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the dahn available in p h t e law for damages for torturous acts of public servants Publlc law pmeadnge serve a purpoee diffarent from private law proceedings. Award of compensation for wtaMkhed infringement of the indivlsible rights guaranteed under Art. 21 iu a ramecty adable In publlc law, since the purpose of public law is not only to civlllse publk power but also to asaura the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be proteded and presewed. The grant of compensation in pmwadlngs under Art 32 or Art. 226 of ths Constitution d In- b r the established dolation of the fundamental rlghts gr#lmnW undsr Art 21, is an exerdse of the courts under the puMlc law jurisdiction tor penallaing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State whlch failed in the d -l of its putrllc duty to protect the fundamental rights of the dtiran. The quantum of compensation will, of mume, depand upon the particular facts of each case. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law Jurisdlctlon 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. Some important judgements on compensatlon are: Nilabati Behera Vs State of Orissa (1993)2 S.C.C. 746 Sahell, A Women's Resources Centre Vs. Commr. Of Pdice (1990) 1 S.C.C. 422. Bhim Slngh Vs State of J&K (I 985) 4 S.C.C. 677. Sebmtlan M. Hongray Vs UOI & Others (1984) 1 S.C.C. 339. Rudul Shah Vs State of Bihar (1983) 4 S.C.C. 141. The judgements have had great bearing on the work of the Commission.