D. K. BASU V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1997) 1 SCC 416.
Landmark case on criminal jurisprudence.
ABSTRACT
D K Basu
V. State of West Bengal is a landmark case. It is one of the most important
cases due to its remarkable judgment on custodial violence and death. Before
this case was decided, there were many cases concerning third degree torture by
police authorities to those in custody, death due to the treatment meted out to
them and infringement of their rights. This case was brought up before the
court by executive chairman of Legal Aid services of West Bengal, Mr. D K Basu
by way of a letter petition presented to the Chief Justice of India. One of the
major issues of the case was whether custodial violence and death violates
article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. Right to Life and Liberty. Court
also made many observations in the case and made third-degree methods totally
impermissible.It also empowered the concerned authorities to provide
compensation to the victim or the family of the victim in case of death. After
the judgment was passed, it was observed that the number of such cases have
comparatively reduced. However the number keeps on fluctuating every year.
PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
|
Petitioner |
Mr. D K Basu |
|
Case brought by |
Letter (treated as Public Interest Litigation) |
|
Jurisdiction involved |
Supreme Court of India |
|
Date on which the case was decided |
December 18, 1996 |
|
Judgment given by |
Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice Dr. A.S. Anand |
|
Legal aspects involved in the case |
Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution |
|
Case analysis prepared by |
Imra Fatima |
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
D K Basu
v. State of West Bengal was brought before the court by Mr. D K Basu, the
Executive Officer of Legal Aid Services West Bengal. He wrote a letter
addressed to the Chief Justice of India, Justice Ranganath Mishra on 26th August
1986, based on the new of custodial violence and torture by police in lock-ups.
D K Basu requested that this matter should be treated urgently since the number
of cases in this regard are increasing and also there have been victims of the
same tragedy in the past as well. He gave several suggestions regarding custody
jurisprudence and even recommended modes of awarding compensation to the
victims. Since the matter was of grave concern for the CJI, therefore he
treated the letter as a writ petition under the category of Public Interest
Litigation. Supreme Court dealt the matter under its power of original
jurisdiction granted to it by the article 131 of the Constitution of India i.e.
Original jurisdiction.
This
letter was followed by another letter by Aligarh province which discussed the
death of a person in police custody. It also suggested measures to state
governments and various other law commissions to be carried out to prevent
custodial violence. The Supreme Court drew its attention to both these letters
and also certain other cases wherein such cruel treatment was meted out to the
persons in police custody or lock-ups. Taking everything into consideration the
Supreme Court appointed Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi as amicus curiae for assisting the court on this matter.
ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
There are
various issues involved in the case discussed above. The major issue rests with
the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution which is ‘Protection of Life and Personal Liberty’.
Article 21 includes various rights which allows a person to live life
rightfully and with dignity. However, whether violence inflicted by police
officials on the people in its custody violates Article 21 was the matter in
concern. In criminal law, the accused is presumed to be innocent until he is
proven guilty. Hence, infliction of third degree violence methods which may
even cause the death of the accused was a right method or not was another issue
in question. Supplementary to this, other questions arise such as what methods
and working modes should be adopted by the police authorities to treat the
prisoners and those in custody, and whether they are authorized to carry out
such treatment to them. Lastly, provision of compensation to the victims or to
the families of victims in case of their death due to custodial violence should
be provided or not. If yes, then what should be the criteria to avail such
compensation.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
ARGUMENTS
RAISED BY THE PETITIONER
The
petitioner argued that the use of third degree methods by the police
authorities should be curbed. Custodial violence including physical assault,
rape, brutal use of force, murder, etc should be prevented to every extend.
State must endeavour and provide various measures to regulate the functioning
of the police officials. It must also impose certain restrictions on the
unnecessary exercise and misuse of powers on the police authorities. Provision
of regulating guidelines will provide a check on the functioning of the police
authorities whereas imposing restrictions will curtail their excessive use of
unauthorized powers. They further argued that the state should be vicariously
liable for the acts committed by a police officer on duty, since it is the duty
of the state to protect the rights of its citizens. Even if any person is in
custody he has the right to live. No police officer should use excessive or
unnecessary force on the person in custody even during interrogation. If it
happens then the compensation must be provided.
ARGUMENTS RAISED
BY THE RESPONDENT
The
respondent argued that it is quite necessary on the part of the police to use
force for proper implementation of laws and their obedience by the public. If
they are devoid of such powers then the public will not fear them and will
engage in all sorts of misconduct in everyday activities. The power delegated
to them helps in maintaining peace and law and order in the society. It was
also argued that the use of power by the police officers is in accordance with
the state laws.
LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED
Article 21
and Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution was involved while determining the
case. Article 21 is ‘Protection of life
and personal liberty’, it says that ‘No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.’ It
also includes various rights under this category regarding protection of life
and liberty of a person. This right is also granted to the person even if he is
in custody or prison. He has the right to live life with dignity free from
external pressures which cause hindrance to such an enjoyment. Therefore in the
case above, the custodial violence and death that was witnessed caused
infringement of this right under this article and also basic human rights.
Hence the provision was likely to be observed while deciding the case. Moreover
Article 22(1) is ‘Protection against
arrest and detention in certain cases.’ It gives the right to the citizen
to know the grounds of his arrest and to be produced before the magistrate
before 24 hours. The detainee also has the right to consult a legal
practitioner of his choice. In this case a violation of Article 22(1) is also
seen.
JUDGEMENT
The bench
of Justice A. S. Anand and Justice Kuldip Singh gave a remarkable pronouncement
that became a landmark judgment. The judgment can be observed in two aspects :
firstly, elaborating a system of various methods to guide and regulate the
conduct of police authorities and providing a procedural safeguard. Secondly,
provision for compensation to the victims of such abuse.
The
Supreme Court referred to the case of Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa (AIR
1993 SC 1960), and reiterated that prisoners and detainees should not be
deprived of their Fundamental Rights under Article 21 . Only legally
permissible restrictions can be imposed on the enjoyment of their Fundamental
Rights.
Transparency
should be maintained and the police officers must be held accountable for their
wrongful acts. The court observed that use of third degree methods even during
interrogation is not permission and the methods should be based on human and
scientific methods. Police were also provided with a list of guidelines which they
have to observe while arresting someone and if these guidelines are not
observed then the police officers can be held liable for the contempt of the
court.
Following
were the guidelines given by the court:
a) The
police officer who makes the arrest of the person must have an accurate,
visible and clear identification registered and must carry this identification
at the time of interrogation also.
b) The
police officer carrying out the arrest must prepare a memo of arrest at the
time of arrest and it shall be attested by at least one witness.
c) The
arrested person also has the right to inform about his arrest to this family,
close friend or relative.
d) The
details of arrest including time, place and venue of custody must be informed
by the police officer.
e) An
entry regarding the arrest of the person should also be made in the diary at
the place of detention. It must also be accompanied with other details like the
police officer under whose custody the arrest is made; the name of the family
member, friend or close relative who have been notified with the information of
arrest.
f) Any
information regarding minor or major injuries must also be recorded in the inspection memo signed by both the
arrestee and the police officer making the arrest.
g) A
medical examination should also be performed within 48 hours of detention by a
trained doctor. It can also be performed by a doctor appointed by the Director
of Health Services of the concerned state.
h) The arrestee should be allowed to meet his
lawyer throughout the interrogation process.
i) Police
control rooms should be established at all district and state headquarters.
Moreover,
the compensation to be paid by the state is based on judicial directives and
legal mechanisms. Apart from legal provision, it also depends on the nature of
torture inflicted, injuries suffered by him, amount spend on treating those
injuries and also the financial background of the victim.
IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE
In a
common law country like India where precedence holds utmost importance, it was
necessary to pronounce a judgment like in the case of D K Basu v. State of West
Bengal to prohibit such brutal treatment to humans even if they were prisoners
or they were in custody. Prisoners also have human right to live and if such
inhumane treatment was inflicted on them then that would cause mental agony and
trauma and it may even lead to their collapse. Moreover if custodial violence
was not prevented then the basic idea of doing justice would lose its
importance. Also, the guidelines which the honourable court gave in its
judgement provided a framework for functioning of police authorities. These
guidelines regulated the power of the officers and curtailed any excessive use
of power or misuse of power by them. The provision for compensation also
discouraged and reduced many such upcoming cases, and prevented the deplorable
condition of the victims.
However,
many cases go unreported in the rural areas due to lack of proper law
enforcement. Many perpetrators have escaped punishment due to loopholes that
exist in the legal framework. Many cases go unnoticed due to lack of literacy
and unawareness. Sometimes the victim or the family of the victim fail to claim
compensation due to the unawareness of their right to claim compensation.
CONCLUSION
However,
after the judgment has been passed the number of cases in this regard have
comparatively reduced but this is not the end. Due to the loopholes, lack of
effective implementation of guidelines, proper procedures to be followed by the
police officers regarding arrest and detention, unawareness on the part of the
arrestee of his rights of arrest and unawareness regarding the claim of
compensation have caused numerous problems.
Recent
cases like Jayaraj and Bennicks Case
(2020) have shown alleged police
brutality.
Although
we have seen that the number of cases of custodial violence have reduced but
they have not yet reduced to zero, there are still certain cases involving this
legal provision. We need more detailed provisions and their proper
implementation in all the parts of the country by devoted officials. Besides,
various measures should be adopted to educate and aware the citizens so that
they can fight for themselves.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): Landmark Case on Custodial Violence and Fundamental Rights
- D.K. Basu case summary
- Custodial violence in India
- Landmark Supreme Court case 1997
- Rights of arrested person India
- Article 21 custodial death
- Supreme Court guidelines on arrest
- D.K. Basu judgment
- Human rights and police custody
- Indian constitutional law cases
- Police accountability in India
Post a Comment