Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2013)
Citation: (2013) 5 SCC 1
Facts of the Case:
Kishore Samrite, a prisoner, was detained in custody in Uttar Pradesh.
During custody, he was subjected to severe physical torture and custodial violence by the police.
The police allegedly inflicted grievous injuries and torture, violating the prisoner’s fundamental rights.
Kishore Samrite filed a writ petition seeking compensation for custodial torture and punishment of responsible police officers.
The case raised serious concerns about the violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution of India.
Legal Issues:
Whether custodial violence amounts to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.
The liability of the State and police officers for custodial torture.
The right to compensation for victims of custodial torture.
The extent of judicial intervention to ensure accountability and prevention of custodial crimes.
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court underscored that custodial violence is a gross violation of human rights and a grave abuse of power.
It affirmed the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and dignity under Article 21.
The Court reiterated that the State is vicariously liable for the acts of police officers and officials acting under its control.
Police officers are public servants, and any act of custodial torture is punishable under relevant criminal laws and is also a breach of fundamental rights.
The Court emphasized that victims of custodial violence are entitled to adequate compensation for physical and mental suffering.
It highlighted the need for effective investigation and prosecution of custodial violence cases.
The Court called for strict measures to prevent torture, including training police, monitoring custody practices, and implementing guidelines laid down in earlier judgments.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ordered the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay compensation to Kishore Samrite for the custodial violence suffered.
The Court directed the authorities to take disciplinary action against the responsible police officials.
It reinforced the zero-tolerance policy towards custodial violence.
The Court reminded police and State governments to follow the directions and safeguards provided in previous rulings regarding custody.
Legal Principles Established:
Custodial Violence violates Article 21:
Right to life includes the right to live with dignity, free from torture or inhuman treatment.
State Liability:
State is responsible for police actions; victims can claim compensation and damages.
Right to Compensation:
Victims of custodial torture have a constitutional right to seek compensation from the State.
Judicial Oversight:
Courts have the power to enforce fundamental rights and order remedial measures against custodial abuse.
Related Landmark Case Law:
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and safeguard detainees’ rights.
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Ordered compensation in a custodial death case and held State liable.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014)
Reiterated zero tolerance for custodial torture and ordered strict police reforms.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
Emphasized the need for police accountability in arrests and custody.
Summary:
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. is a landmark judgment reinforcing the constitutional protection against custodial violence.
The case underscores the State’s duty to protect detainees from torture and uphold human dignity.
It affirms the right of victims to compensation and holds police officers accountable for violations.
The case strengthens the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring police reforms to prevent custodial abuses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments