Latest News
Back
Document:
Case analysis : Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri v. State Of West Bengal, State Of U.P
Citation: AIR 1997SC 610
Case no. : WRIT PETITION ( CRL) NO. 592 OF 1987
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice Dr. A.S. Anand
Date Decided: 18 December 1996
Appellant: SHRI D.K. BASU, ASHOK K. JOHRI
Respondent: STATE OF WEST BENGAL, STATE OF U.P.
Facts
DK Basu, Executive Chairman of West Bengal Legal Aid Services, an apolitical organization on 26th of August 1986 addressed a letter to the Supreme Court drawing attention to a news article published in the Telegraph Newspaper about deaths in police custody. He requested that his letter be considered as a Writ Petition in the public interest. The court after understanding the importance of the issue treated the letter as a written Petition and the Defendants were notified the same and asked for a reply. In response to the notification, several states including West Bengal, Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, and Manipur submitted affidavits. Dr. A.M.Singh, a senior advocate of the apex court was appointed as Amicus Curiae ( friend of Court) to assist the Court in the case.
Issues
- Why are crimes against persons in police custody increasing?
- Is there any need to specify some guidelines to make an arrest?
Arguments Advanced by the parties
Petitioner
The learned counsel from the side of the petitioner contended that bodily pain and mental agony suffered by his client within the four walls of a police station behind the bar or confinement should be avoided. Whether it is physical assault or mental agony in police custody, the scope of trauma experienced by the persons detained is beyond the purview of the law. They further argued that a civilized nation requires the hour and some immediate steps should be taken for its eradication.
Respondent
The learned advocates representing different states and Dr. A.M.Singhvi contented that “everything was fine” within their respective states, presented above their respective beliefs and rendered useful assistance to the present Court in examining various facets of the difficulty and made certain suggestions for formulation of guidelines by this court to scale back, if not prevent, custodial violence and relatives of these who die in custody on account of torture.
Judgment
The Supreme court of India after hearing the arguments from both the parties and considering the facts of the case further Relied on Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orrisa (1993), the court ruled that any form of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatments falls under the ambit of article 21, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. The rights granted to the citizens of the country by article 21 of the constitution of India cannot be denied to undertrials, convicts, detenus, and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions on the right granted to the citizens as permitted by the law. Even after laying down all these procedural requirements in Joginder Kumar vs. the State of U.P., the court had ruled that the police arrested a person without a warrant in connection with the investigation of an offense and the arrested person has been subjected to torture to extract information or agree upon a confession.
As a result, the court issued a list of 12 guidelines in addition to the Constitutional and statutory safeguards which are to be followed in all such cases of arrest and detention.
Document:
