Custodial Safeguards In Bnss
I. Introduction
Custodial safeguards refer to the legal protections and procedural guarantees that the law provides to a person who is detained or arrested by the police or other law enforcement agencies. These safeguards aim to prevent custodial torture, illegal detention, and custodial deaths.
Custody refers to situations when a person is deprived of their liberty by the state (police or jail authorities).
II. Constitutional & Statutory Provisions
Key legal provisions include:
Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty; no person shall be deprived of these except according to procedure established by law.
Article 22 of the Constitution: Provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, including the right to be informed of grounds of arrest, right to legal counsel, and the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
Section 50, 56, 57, 58, 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Deal with arrest and detention procedures.
Sections 330 and 331 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Penalize causing hurt or wrongful confinement to extort confession or information.
Directions from the Supreme Court in landmark cases.
III. Important Custodial Safeguards
Right to be informed of grounds of arrest (Article 22(1)).
Right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of choice.
Right to be produced before magistrate within 24 hours (Article 22(2)).
Medical examination of the arrested person at the time of arrest and during custody.
Police must maintain proper arrest memos and interrogation records.
Prohibition of torture, third-degree methods, and custodial violence.
Right to be free from self-incrimination (Article 20(3)).
Filing of First Information Report (FIR) and recording of statement in the presence of a lawyer or independent witness.
Access to relatives and medical practitioners.
Remedies available including writ petitions, compensation, and judicial oversight.
IV. Key Case Laws Explaining Custodial Safeguards
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
Multiple cases of custodial deaths and torture in West Bengal prompted the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines.
Held:
The Supreme Court issued detailed directions to be followed by the police during arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and deaths, including:
Arrest memo must be prepared and attested by a witness.
The arrested person must be informed of grounds of arrest.
Police officer must inform a relative or friend about the arrest.
Medical examination of the detainee at the time of arrest and every 48 hours.
Police interrogation should be conducted at the police station.
Significance:
Set the landmark procedural safeguards now known as the “D.K. Basu guidelines”.
2. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260
Facts:
The petitioner was arrested without sufficient grounds and detained unlawfully.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized that arrest should be a last resort and must be based on reasonable satisfaction of the officer.
Court held that:
Arrest without reasonable grounds is illegal.
Right to be informed of grounds of arrest.
Right to legal counsel.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the constitutional right against arbitrary arrest.
3. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts:
Use of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping on accused persons without consent.
Held:
Supreme Court held that such techniques violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty under Article 21, unless voluntary consent is obtained.
Significance:
Protected custodial rights against invasive interrogation methods.
4. Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424
Facts:
Accused was subjected to police interrogation.
Held:
Court held that the accused has the right to remain silent, and that compelled self-incrimination is illegal.
Significance:
Upheld the right against self-incrimination, a key custodial safeguard.
5. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301
Facts:
Cases of custodial torture and deaths reported.
Held:
Court reiterated the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards and emphasized accountability of police personnel involved in custodial violence.
Significance:
Stressed state responsibility in preventing custodial abuse.
6. Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985) 4 SCC 677
Facts:
Petitioner was illegally detained in custody without being produced before magistrate.
Held:
Court held that failure to produce a detainee before magistrate within 24 hours violates Article 22(2) and is illegal.
Significance:
Upheld the mandate of timely judicial oversight of custody.
V. Summary Table
| Case | Key Point | Custodial Safeguard Established |
|---|---|---|
| D.K. Basu v. State of WB | Guidelines for arrest and detention | Arrest memo, medical exam, informing relatives, etc. |
| Joginder Kumar v. State of UP | Arrest as last resort; reasonable grounds | Protection against arbitrary arrest |
| Selvi v. State of Karnataka | Consent needed for narco/polygraph | Protection against self-incrimination and invasive tests |
| Nandini Sathpathy v. Dani | Right to silence | Protection from compelled self-incrimination |
| PUCL v. Union of India | Police accountability | State duty to prevent custodial torture |
| Bhim Singh v. State of J&K | Right to judicial custody oversight | Production before magistrate within 24 hours |
VI. Conclusion
Custodial safeguards are crucial for protecting human rights during arrest and detention. The Supreme Court through various judgments has laid down detailed procedural guidelines and constitutional protections to prevent misuse of power by law enforcement agencies. These safeguards emphasize transparency, accountability, and protection against torture and arbitrary detention.
RELATED Blog
0 comments