effected by the executive arm of the State

in Ramesh Maharaj Vs. The Attorney General(1978) 2 WLR 902 it is ruled as under;

“The order of Maharaj J. committing the appellant to prison was made by him in the exercise of the judicial powers of the State; the arrest and detention of the appellant pursuant to the judge’s order was effected by the executive arm of the State. So if his detention amounted to a contravention of his rights under S.1(a), it was a contravention by the State against which he was entitled to protection. …This is not vicarious liability; it is a liability of the State itself. It is not a liability in tort at all; it is a liability in the public law of the State, not of the judge himself, which has been newly created by S.6(1) and (2) of the Constitution. For these reasons the appeal must be allowed and the case remitted to the high court with a direction to assess the amount of monetary compensation to which the appellant is entitled .The respondent must pay the costs of this appeal and of the proceeding in both Courts below.”

That the ratio laid down in Ramesh Maharaj’s case (supra) is followed by Supreme Court of India in two landmark Judgements of D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 .