D.K. Basu V. State Of West Bengal And Custodial Safeguards
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) — Landmark Case on Custodial Safeguards
Facts:
D.K. Basu, a senior lawyer, filed a public interest litigation highlighting the growing problem of custodial deaths and torture in police custody. The Supreme Court responded by laying down detailed guidelines to prevent torture and custodial deaths.
Issue:
How to protect arrested persons from custodial torture and deaths, and what safeguards should be mandated?
Held:
The Supreme Court issued 11 mandatory guidelines for police and law enforcement, including:
Arrest memo must be prepared at the time of arrest and signed by the arrested person.
Relatives or friends of the arrested person must be informed immediately.
The arrested person must be medically examined within 24 hours.
Police must maintain a detailed diary or record of the arrest and detention.
In case of death or injury in custody, a magisterial inquiry must be conducted promptly.
Photograph and medical report of the arrested person must be preserved.
Significance:
D.K. Basu established judicial safeguards against police excesses and torture, creating a procedural framework to protect fundamental rights (especially under Article 21 - Right to Life).
Related Custodial Safeguards Cases
1. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Facts:
Nilabati Behera’s son died in police custody, allegedly due to torture.
Issue:
Whether the state is liable for custodial death and what compensation can be awarded?
Held:
The Supreme Court held the state liable for custodial death, emphasizing the state’s duty to protect the life and dignity of arrested persons. It awarded compensation to the victim’s family and mandated strict action against the police officers responsible.
Significance:
This case reinforced that custodial deaths violate constitutional rights and that the state must provide compensation as a form of accountability.
2. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Facts:
Prakash Singh, an NGO activist, filed a petition seeking police reforms to curb custodial violence and misuse of power.
Issue:
What systemic reforms are necessary to prevent custodial abuses and ensure accountability in the police force?
Held:
The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directives including:
Fixed tenure for police officers.
Establishment of State Security Commissions.
Police must report to an independent authority regarding custodial incidents.
Enhanced training to respect human rights.
Significance:
A landmark decision focused on structural reforms to prevent custodial violence and improve police accountability.
3. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
Facts:
Joginder Kumar was arrested and detained without proper procedure, and alleged police torture followed.
Issue:
What are the procedures for lawful arrest, and how can courts intervene to prevent illegal detention and custodial violence?
Held:
The court ruled that:
Arrest should not be arbitrary; police must have valid reasons.
Arrested persons must be informed of grounds of arrest.
Courts must examine the legality of detention promptly and grant bail if detention is illegal.
Significance:
This case established the principle that arrests without valid reason or due process are illegal and violative of rights, aiming to reduce custodial abuses.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Laxmikant Shah (1980)
Facts:
A man died in police custody under suspicious circumstances.
Issue:
What is the extent of the state’s liability and the responsibility of police for custodial deaths?
Held:
The court held that custodial deaths are serious violations of constitutional rights and the state is liable for the actions of police officers in custody. The court stressed that the police must follow due process and safeguard detainees.
Significance:
This case reinforced that custodial deaths call for strict legal scrutiny and accountability.
5. Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981)
Facts:
A detainee died in police custody due to torture.
Issue:
Can courts intervene to prevent torture and enforce custodial safeguards?
Held:
The Supreme Court recognized the importance of protecting detainees from torture and laid down guidelines for investigating custodial deaths and preventing abuse.
Significance:
One of the early cases emphasizing the need for judicial vigilance against custodial torture.
Summary of Custodial Safeguards Principles:
Protection against torture and death in custody is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Police must follow strict procedural safeguards: informing family, medical examination, arrest memo.
State is liable for custodial deaths and must compensate victims.
Courts have an active role in reviewing legality of detention and ensuring enforcement of safeguards.
Structural reforms and training are needed to reduce custodial abuses.
RELATED Blog
comments