Accountability For Extrajudicial Detentions And Disappearances
𧞠Understanding Extrajudicial Detentions and Disappearances
Definition
Extrajudicial Detention:
Detaining a person without legal authority, due process, or judicial oversight. Such detentions often bypass constitutional or statutory safeguards.
Enforced Disappearances:
A person is arrested, detained, or abducted by state agents or with their acquiescence, and the state refuses to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or conceal their fate.
Recognized internationally as a serious human rights violation.
Legal Framework
International
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966 â Article 9 protects liberty and security of person.
Convention Against Torture (CAT), 1984 â prohibits torture and cruel treatment.
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 2006.
India
Article 21 of the Constitution â Right to life and personal liberty.
Supreme Court Guidelines: Habeas corpus, judicial oversight, and compensation in case of unlawful detention.
Torture and Human Rights Statutes: No specific law against enforced disappearance exists in India, but courts rely on IPC sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping), 34 (common intention), and constitutional remedies.
âď¸ Landmark Case Laws (Detailed)
1. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
Facts:
During the Emergency (1975â77), the government suspended fundamental rights under Article 352. Detention of citizens without trial was widespread. Petitioners filed for habeas corpus.
Legal Issues:
Whether the Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21) can be suspended during Emergency.
Accountability of state authorities for extrajudicial detentions.
Judgment:
Supreme Court controversially held that during Emergency, citizens have no right to move courts for habeas corpus.
Criticized globally as legitimizing extrajudicial detentions.
Significance:
Triggered a later legal reform, including the right to life as non-derogable, reaffirmed in M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and post-Emergency judgments.
2. Peopleâs Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged âfake encountersâ by police in Jammu & Kashmir (extrajudicial killings).
Legal Issues:
Whether the state can carry out custodial killings and claim immunity.
Accountability under Article 21 and Rule of Law.
Judgment:
Supreme Court directed:
Inquiry by independent authorities.
Registration of FIRs against police officers.
Compensation for victimsâ families.
Significance:
Established that no law or government order legitimizes extrajudicial killings.
Laid foundation for judicial scrutiny of disappearances and encounters.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts:
Petition concerning custodial deaths and disappearances in West Bengal.
Legal Issues:
Procedures to prevent arbitrary detention and extrajudicial disappearance.
Judgment:
Supreme Court provided guidelines to police:
All arrests must be recorded.
Family or lawyer must be informed within 24 hours.
Arrest memo must be signed by detainee and witness.
Medical examination of detainee at regular intervals.
Significance:
Key case holding state authorities accountable for arbitrary detention.
Standard reference in all subsequent cases on disappearances.
4. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004)
Facts:
During the Gujarat riots (2002), several victims disappeared after being detained by local authorities.
Legal Issues:
Alleged failure of the state to investigate disappearances.
Accountability of police and administrative authorities.
Judgment:
Supreme Court criticized failure to protect life under Article 21.
Ordered independent investigations and protection of witnesses.
Significance:
Reinforced that state cannot evade accountability for enforced disappearances.
Established principle of compensation for negligence.
5. Rina Mukherji v. Union of India (2006)
Facts:
Petition challenging illegal detentions of political activists and cases of missing persons in West Bengal and North-East India.
Legal Issues:
Violation of habeas corpus rights.
Need for government reporting and investigation.
Judgment:
Court emphasized:
All detentions must be lawful and recorded.
Families must be notified.
Judicial oversight must exist.
Significance:
Strengthened procedural safeguards against extrajudicial detentions.
6. International Case: VelĂĄsquez RodrĂguez v. Honduras (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 1988)
Facts:
A human rights activist disappeared in Honduras, allegedly abducted by state security forces.
Legal Issues:
Whether the state is accountable for enforced disappearance under international law.
Judgment:
Court held Honduras responsible for violation of right to life and personal liberty.
Introduced principle of state responsibility for acts by its agents, even if the perpetrator acted individually.
Significance:
Landmark case in international human rights law.
Basis for UN Convention Against Enforced Disappearance.
7. International Case: Case of the âDisappeared Studentsâ in Mexico (Ayotzinapa, 2014)
Facts:
Forty-three students from Ayotzinapa Teacher Training College disappeared, allegedly abducted by local police with involvement of criminal groups.
Legal Issues:
Accountability of the state for failing to prevent and investigate disappearance.
Violation of international human rights treaties.
Outcome:
International pressure led to investigations by Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
Police officials and government functionaries were prosecuted; some convictions achieved.
Significance:
Illustrates state responsibility and international accountability mechanisms.
Highlights need for transparent judicial processes and protection of victimsâ families.
đ§ Conclusion
Key Points on Accountability:
State Responsibility: Governments cannot evade responsibility for detentions or disappearances by claiming official immunity.
Judicial Remedies: Habeas corpus, compensation, and independent inquiries are essential.
Guidelines & Safeguards: Courts mandate arrest memos, family notifications, and medical checks.
International Standards: UN conventions and human rights law strengthen accountability and pressure states to investigate.
Compensation & Justice: Even if perpetrators act individually, the state bears liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments