Complaints before the Commission station. The Commission also received a complaint fnDm the People's Union for Civil Liberties, Kamataka, suspecting foul play in this case, and requesting the Commission to have the matter investigated, bring the culprits to justice and award compensation to the next of kin of the victim. Pursuant to the Commission's directions, the Additional Chief Secretary, Karnataka, sent a report along with copies of the post-mortem and inquest reports. These were contradictory in nature and did not establish the fact that the victim had committed suicide. Considering the facts and circumstances as disclosed in the reports, the Commission was of the view that there was justification for a presumptive inference that the deatli ofThimmaiah, in the absence of a convincing explanation from those who had him in their power and custody, had been caused in custody by the police. In any event, the police, who held sway over the person of Thimmaiah, are guilty of not preventing the suicide, even if the remote theory of a suicide were at all held to be probable. Accordingly, the Commission directed the Government of Kamataka to register a case against tlie errant police officials and initiate departmental action against them. A case ^vas also to be registered against the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem, on charges of destroying evidence. The Commission directed the investigation to be taken over by the Corps of Detectives of the Kamataka State, and since there was a strong prima facie case of violation of human rights, the Govemment of Kamataka was directed to pay an interim relief of Rs. 2 lakhs to the next of kin of the deceased. Itwouldbeat liberty to initiate proceedings for recovering the sum from those who, by their high-handedness, had exposed the Govemment to this liability. The Commission has received a compliance report from the Govemment of Kamataka on the payment of compensation, disciplinary proceedings and prosecution. COMMENT The liability of the State for damages for violation of the Constitutional rights to life, liberty and dignity of the individual has been recognised and established as a part of the public law regime. In the decisions of the Apex Court, in particular, in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhf and Nilabati Behera v State ofOrissa,^ the constitutional andjuristic foundations of this liability of the State have been formally and finally laid down. Even the claim of sovereign immunity arising out, of the State discharging sovereign functions, is held to be no defence at all against the acts of violation of the Constitutionally guaranteed Fundamental Human Rights. 1 (1981) 1 see 608. 2 (1993) 2 see 746. 97