Case Studies On Extrajudicial Detentions And Custodial Deaths
🧾 Case Studies on Extrajudicial Detentions and Custodial Deaths
1. Prakash Kadam & Others v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011)
Citation: (2011) 6 SCC 189
Background:
This case involved the custodial killing of an alleged gangster, Ramnarayan Gupta alias Lakhan Bhaiya, by Mumbai Police personnel in 2006. The police claimed it was an encounter killing (self-defense), but investigations later revealed it to be a staged fake encounter.
Facts:
The victim was allegedly abducted and killed by police officers in a fake encounter.
Witnesses and forensic evidence showed he was unarmed and in police custody prior to being killed.
The case drew national attention for the misuse of police power and absence of accountability.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court condemned fake encounters, stating:
“Fake encounters by police personnel amount to cold-blooded, brutal murder, and those committing it must be given the death sentence if found guilty.”
It reinforced the idea that no officer has the right to take the law into his own hands, regardless of the accused’s criminal background.
Significance:
Established that extrajudicial killings violate Article 21.
Recognized police accountability and emphasized the need for independent investigations.
Sent a strong message that State agents are not above the law.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Citation: (1993) 2 SCC 746
Background:
A 22-year-old man, Suman Behera, was arrested by the police in Orissa for theft and found dead on the railway tracks the next day. His mother, Nilabati Behera, filed a petition under Article 32 seeking compensation for the violation of her son’s right to life.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that custodial deaths constitute a direct violation of Article 21.
It ruled that public law remedy in the form of compensation must be awarded to the victim’s family, independent of criminal or civil proceedings.
The Court awarded ₹1,50,000 as compensation to the petitioner.
Key Principle:
“A claim for compensation in case of established violation of the fundamental right to life is maintainable and justified.”
Significance:
This case established the doctrine of constitutional tort — the idea that the State can be held financially liable for human rights violations by its agents.
It emphasized State accountability for custodial violence and deaths.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Citation: (1997) 1 SCC 416
Background:
This landmark case arose after numerous reports of custodial deaths and torture. D.K. Basu, Executive Chairman of the Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, wrote to the Chief Justice of India highlighting widespread abuse during arrests.
Issue:
Lack of procedural safeguards during arrest and detention leading to abuse, torture, and deaths in police custody.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down 11 mandatory guidelines to be followed during arrest and detention, including:
Arresting officer must wear identification.
Memo of arrest must be prepared and signed by a witness.
Relative/friend must be informed of the arrest.
Medical examination every 48 hours.
Production before magistrate within 24 hours.
Police Control Room notification within 12 hours.
Significance:
Became the cornerstone judgment for protection of human rights during detention.
Violation of these guidelines constitutes contempt of court.
Strengthened procedural safeguards under Article 21 and 22(1).
4. Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2006)
Citation: (2006) 3 SCC 178
Background:
The petitioner, Sube Singh, was illegally detained and tortured by Haryana police to extract information about his relatives accused of theft.
Legal Question:
Whether the victim of custodial torture can be awarded compensation under public law remedy.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles from Nilabati Behera, holding that monetary compensation is an appropriate remedy for custodial violence.
The Court recognized that psychological torture and illegal detention also amount to violation of Article 21.
Awarded compensation to the petitioner and directed disciplinary action against erring officials.
Significance:
Strengthened the concept of public law compensation.
Reinforced the need for strict departmental action against offending police officers.
5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014)
Citation: (2014) 10 SCC 635
Background:
This case addressed fake encounter killings in Maharashtra, where the police claimed to have killed several alleged criminals in self-defense.
Issues:
Whether encounter killings violate the right to life.
Whether independent investigation should be mandatory in all such cases.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
Every police encounter resulting in death must be investigated independently by the CID or another police station.
Established 16-point guidelines for investigating encounter deaths.
Directed that FIR must be registered and Magisterial Inquiry conducted under Section 176 of CrPC.
Significance:
Prevented misuse of power under the guise of self-defense.
Made transparency and accountability mandatory in all cases of police killings.
Reinforced judicial oversight over police operations.
6. Tamil Nadu Custodial Death Case (Jayaraj and Bennix, 2020)
Background:
In June 2020, Jayaraj and his son Bennix, shopkeepers from Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu, were arrested for allegedly violating COVID-19 lockdown rules. Both died in custody within two days after brutal torture by police.
Facts:
Witnesses reported severe injuries to both bodies.
The case drew nationwide outrage and comparisons to George Floyd’s death.
The CBI investigation confirmed custodial torture.
Legal Developments:
The Madras High Court took suo motu cognizance.
Six police officers were arrested and charged with murder (Section 302 IPC).
The case highlighted the systemic failure in implementing D.K. Basu guidelines.
Significance:
Renewed debate on police reforms and independent oversight bodies.
Reinforced the need for CCTV surveillance in police stations.
Triggered government actions toward police accountability legislation.
7. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)
Citation: (1983) 4 SCC 141
Background:
Rudul Sah was kept in jail for 14 years after his acquittal by the court. His detention had no legal basis.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that this illegal detention was a gross violation of Article 21.
Awarded compensation of ₹35,000, establishing the right to compensation for unlawful detention.
Observed that compensation should serve as a deterrent to future violations.
Significance:
First major case where the Supreme Court awarded compensation for illegal detention.
Introduced the principle that “mere release is not enough; compensation is essential.”
⚖️ Constitutional and Legal Analysis
Key Articles:
Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
Article 22: Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Article 32 / 226: Right to constitutional remedies.
Key Legal Principles Evolved:
Compensation as a Constitutional Remedy – (Nilabati Behera, Rudul Sah).
Procedural Safeguards During Arrest – (D.K. Basu).
Independent Investigation in Encounter Deaths – (PUCL v. Maharashtra).
Accountability of State Officials – (Prakash Kadam, Sube Singh).
Recognition of Torture as Violation of Right to Life – (Jayaraj & Bennix Case).
🧩 Conclusion
The above case studies reflect that:
Custodial deaths and extrajudicial detentions are grave violations of fundamental rights.
The judiciary has progressively expanded the scope of Article 21 to ensure justice, dignity, and accountability.
Courts have moved beyond mere declarations to provide compensation, guidelines, and systemic reform mandates.
Yet, enforcement remains weak — highlighting the need for a comprehensive anti-torture law, independent oversight, and training reforms in policing.
RELATED Blog
0 comments