Case title:
State of West Bengal and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shri D.K. Basu and Ashok K. Johri
Date of Order:
18 December, 1996
Bench:
Kuldip Singh and Dr. A.S. Anand
Parties:
Petitioners- Shri DK Basu and Ashok K. JOHRI
Respondents- State of WB and State of UP
SUBJECT
- DK Basu, Executive Chairman of West Bengal’s Legal Aid Services, spoke to the Chief Justice of India in 1986 concerning police detention facilities and fatalities while in prison. He emphasised the necessity to look into custody jurisdiction and give victims and their families compensation.
- In order to balance individual freedom with national security, the court noted the recurring problem of torture and deaths while in the custody of the police. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, suspects cannot be killed or subjected to torture in order to get information.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- The Indian Evidence Act, enacted in 1872, governs the admissibility, relevancy, and proof of evidence in Indian courts. It covers key provisions such as the relevance of facts, admissibility of evidence, oral and documentary evidence, witnesses, privileged communication, presumptions, and expert opinions. The Act also addresses the examination, cross-examination, and re-examination of witnesses, as well as privileges for lawyer-client and husband-wife privileges. It also addresses the use of presumptions and expert opinions.
OVERVIEW
- The Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, DK Basu addressed the Chief Justice of India on August 26, 1986, regarding news items about police lock-ups and custody deaths. He emphasized the need for a thorough examination of custody jurisdiction and compensation for victims and their families. The letter was treated as a writ petition under the “public interest litigation” category, and notice was issued on September 9, 1987.
- The Defendants were informed and the letter was handled as a written Petition because to the significance of the matters stated.
- Mahesh Bihari from Pilkhana, Aligarh died in police custody, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Johri wrote to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to draw his attention to this while the writ case was being heard. Along with D.K. Basu’s request for writing, the identical letter was also treated as a request for writing.
- States submitted affidavits, including West Bengal, Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, and Manipur, to respond to the notification.
- The Court requested Bar assistance during writ petition hearings, and Dr. A.M. Singhvi was requested as amicus curia. The Law Commission of India forwarded a report on police custody injuries and Section 114-B inclusion in Evidence Act.
ISSUES RAISED
- Is there a rising trend in crimes committed against people in jails, prisons, or other forms of confinement as a result of law enforcement officials acting more arbitrarily when making arrests, necessitating the creation of particular rules for making arrests?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS
- According to the petitioner, the Court has a sacred duty to prevent the infringement of fundamental human rights like the right to life and freedom. The Rule of Law, which requires that executive authority be subject to legal restrictions, is undermined by the existence of custodial violence, which includes acts of torture and mortality while confined. In a democratic society where people are defenceless and dependent on the protection of law enforcement, this issue is extremely upsetting.
- The petitions aim to address issues with police powers and the possibility of awarding financial compensation in cases of violations of Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The attorney claimed that “within their respective States, everything was well. As was expected of them given the significance of the issue involved, learned counsel for the parties rose above their respective briefs and provided helpful assistance to this Court in examining various aspects of the issue and made certain suggestions for formulation of guidelines by this court to minimise, if not prevent, custodial violence and kith and kin of those who die in custody.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court acknowledged that custodial torture persists despite international Conventions and commitments to eradicate it. It is a direct violation of human dignity, causing degradation and loss of self-esteem. The Court emphasized that despite recommendations from the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure and National Police Commission, incidents of torture and deaths in police custody persist.
- It concluded that individual freedom should be balanced with national security, but the right to interrogate suspects should take precedence over personal liberty.
- Article 21 of the Constitution prohibits torture and that State acts must be just and fair. Criminal suspects can be questioned and subjected to scientific techniques, but they cannot be tortured or killed in order to extract information.
- The Court emphasised that only legal means are authorised for restricting fundamental rights. The Court, it was said, legitimises terrorism rather than helping to combat it, damaging the State, the community, and the rule of law.
- In Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., police arrested a person without a warrant and subjected them to torture to extract information or confession. Hence the court issued 12 guidelines, along with constitutional and statutory safeguards, to ensure fair arrest and detention in all cases-
- Police officers must wear visible identification tags and maintain a register with details of all involved in interrogations. When making an arrest, an arrest memo must be prepared, witnessed, and attested by at least one person, including the arrestee. The memo should include the date and time of the arrest. If arrested, the person has the right to have a friend or relative informed of their arrest, but this notification is not necessary if the witness is already a friend or relative.
- Police must notify the next friend or relative of an arrestee’s arrest within 8-12 hours via legal Aid Organisation and police station. The person must be informed of their right to be informed and have an entry in the diary at the detention location, including the next friend’s name and police officials’ names.
- Arrestees should be examined and recorded for injuries at the time of arrest. An “Inspection Memo” must be co signed by the arrestee and the officer. Medical examinations should be conducted every 48 hours during detention by a trained doctor appointed by the Director of Health Services. Copies of all documents, including the arrest memo, should be sent to the illaqa Magistrate for record-keeping purposes.
- Arrestees can meet lawyers during interrogation, but not during the entire process. Police control rooms should be provided at headquarters, where arrest information is communicated within 12 hours and displayed on a notice board.
Conclusion
- The landmark ruling offered standards for arresting people in order to deter crimes and safeguard their rights while being held. Contempt of court is penalised, and the right procedure has been established. The case intended to defend those who were being held in Indian custody.
