Case Law On Custodial Deaths
1. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
This landmark case arose from reports of torture and deaths in police custody in West Bengal.
Judicial Findings:
The Supreme Court laid down 11 mandatory guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
These include mandatory arrest memos, medical examination at the time of arrest and during custody, police diary entries, informing relatives, and video recording of interrogations.
The Court held that custodial deaths violate fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life).
Directed independent inquiries into custodial deaths and accountability of police officers.
Impact:
Created a legal framework to monitor custodial treatment.
Set procedural safeguards reducing arbitrary violence in custody.
2. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
This case dealt with police reforms, including issues related to custodial violence and deaths.
Judicial Findings:
The Court emphasized police accountability as essential to prevent custodial deaths.
Directed state governments to implement police reforms aimed at depoliticization and accountability.
Highlighted the need for effective investigation and prosecution of custodial death cases.
Emphasized that victims’ families must receive compensation and justice.
Impact:
Strengthened institutional reforms to reduce custodial deaths.
Affirmed the role of independent oversight bodies.
3. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The petitioner was allegedly illegally detained and tortured in custody, leading to severe injuries.
Judicial Findings:
The Court held that illegal detention and custodial torture violate Article 21.
Laid down the requirement for courts to conduct strict inquiries into illegal detention and torture allegations.
Held that police must be answerable to the courts for the safety and well-being of detainees.
Directed judicial magistrates to personally inquire into illegal detention cases.
Impact:
Affirmed the judiciary’s proactive role in preventing custodial abuse.
Strengthened legal safeguards against unlawful custody.
4. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The petitioner’s son died in police custody under suspicious circumstances.
Judicial Findings:
The Court observed custodial deaths as serious violations of fundamental rights.
Awarded compensation to the victim’s family for custodial death.
Directed a detailed investigation and trial of police officers responsible.
Emphasized the state’s duty to protect life and provide justice.
Impact:
Established the principle of compensation as a remedy in custodial death cases.
Enhanced victim rights and accountability.
5. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
This case concerned involuntary polygraph and narco-analysis tests on accused persons, often conducted in police custody.
Judicial Findings:
While not directly about custodial death, the Court recognized the vulnerability of accused persons in custody.
Held that such tests violate Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination).
Stressed the need for voluntariness and informed consent, protecting custodial individuals from coercion.
Emphasized constitutional safeguards to prevent torture and custodial abuse leading to death.
Impact:
Reinforced safeguards against custodial coercion.
Indirectly protects against custodial torture and death by limiting abusive police practices.
Summary of Judicial Principles on Custodial Deaths:
| Principle | Judicial Approach |
|---|---|
| Fundamental Right to Life | Custodial deaths violate Article 21 and must be strictly prevented and punished. |
| Procedural Safeguards | Mandatory guidelines like medical exams, arrest memos, and informing relatives are essential. |
| Police Accountability | Police officers are liable for custodial torture and deaths, subject to inquiry and prosecution. |
| Compensation & Remedies | Victims’ families are entitled to compensation for custodial deaths. |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts have a proactive role in investigating and preventing custodial abuse and illegal detention. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments