D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal
Facts:
On August 26, 1986, DK Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-political organisation, wrote to the Supreme Court of India to draw his attention to several news articles regarding fatalities in police custody and detention that had been published in the Telegraph Newspaper. In the "Public Interest Litigation," he asked that the letter be handled as a Writ Petition.
The Defendants were informed and the letter was handled as a written Petition because to the significance of the matters presented.
Mahesh Bihari from Pilkhana, Aligarh died in police custody, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Johri wrote to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to draw his attention to this while the writ case was being heard. Along with D.K. Basu's request for writing, the identical letter was also considered as a request for writing. The Law Commission also received a notice from the Court, which was issued on August 14, 1987, asking for relevant ideas within a two-month time frame.
Several states, including West Bengal, Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, and Manipur, submitted affidavits in response to the announcement.
Amicus Curiae status was also granted to Dr. A.M. Singh VI, Principal Counsel, to assist the court.
Issues
Why are crimes against persons in lockups or custody increasing day by day ?
The arbitrariness of Policemen in arresting a person.
Is there any need to specify some guidelines to make an arrest?
Arguments from the side of Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that it is preferable to prevent physical and emotional suffering experienced by a person when confined or housed inside a police station. The extent of trauma experiences is beyond the reach of the law, whether it involves physical assault or rape when a person is being held by the police. The petitioner added that serious measures should be done to eradicate it and that a civilised nation is necessary.
Arguments from the side of Respondent:
The attorneys representing the various states and Dr. A.M. Singhvi presented the case and claimed that "everything was fine" in their respective states, presented above their respective beliefs, and helped this Court examine various aspects of the issue. They also made some recommendations for the formulation of guidelines by this court to lessen, if not eliminate, custodial violence and the suffering of those who pass away in custody as a result of torture.
Judgement:
The court cited Nilabati behera v. State of Orrisa (1993) in saying that article 21 prohibits any forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or humiliating treatment, regardless of whether they take place during an inquiry, interrogation, or another situation. Undertrials, criminals, detainees, and other inmates in custody cannot be denied the rights protected by article 21 unless done so in accordance with the legal process and with the insertion of legal-permitted, reasonable limits on the right.
Even after establishing procedural criteria in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., it has been noted that police have frequently detained suspects without a warrant in the course of criminal investigations and have tortured them in an effort to get information or a confession.
In addition to the constitutional and legislative protections, the court established a set of 12 rules that must be observed in all instances of arrest and detention. These are the regulations:
(1) Accurate, visible, and unambiguous identity and name togs with their designations shall be worn by the police officers managing the arrest and the interrogation of the arrestee. All such police officers who handle the arrestee's questioning must have their information entered in a registry.
(2) That the police officer making the arrest of the suspect must create a note of arrest at the time of the arrest. This document must be certified by at least one witness, who may be a relative of the arrested individual or a reputable local citizen. Along with the time and date of the arrest, it must also provide the arrestee's countersignature.
(3) A person who has been detained and is being held in custody in a police station, interrogation facility, or other lock-up is entitled to have one friend, relative, or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare informed of his arrest and detention at the specific location as soon as practicable, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself a friend or relative of the arrestee.
(4) Where the next friend or family of the arrested person resides outside the district or town, the police are required to notify the legal aid organisation of the arrestee's time, site of arrest, and place of incarceration.
(5) As soon as a person is placed under arrest or taken into custody, they must be informed of their right to have someone informed of their arrest or detention.
(6) A note describing the arrest of the person must be recorded in the journal kept at the location of detention. This note must also include the name of the person's next friend who has been told of the arrest as well as the names and contact information of the police officers holding the arrestee.
(7) The arrestee shall be inspected at the time of the arrest, if he asks it, and any significant and minor injuries, if any, must be noted at that time. Both the arrestee and the police officer making the arrest must sign the "Inspection Memo," and a copy of it must be given to the arrestee.
(8) A doctor from the list of recognised doctors nominated by the Director, Health Services of the relevant State or Union Territory should examine the arrested person medically every 48 hours while he is being held in jail. Such a penalty should be created by the Director of Health Services for all Tehsils and Districts as well.
(9) The illaqa Magistrate shall get copies of all the paperwork, including the memo of arrest mentioned above, for his records.
(10) The arrested person may be allowed to speak with his or her attorney while being questioned, but not during the interview.
(11) Information regarding the arrest and the location of the arrestee should be communicated by the arresting officer within (12) hours of the arrest, and at the police control room, it should be posted on a conspicuous notice board. Police control rooms should be provided at all district and state headquarters.
Conclusion
Thus, the case resulted in a historic decision that set down rules for making an arrest lest more crimes be committed in the name of justice. It guards against any violation of a person's rights while they are being held. However, the correct method has now been established by law, and anyone found guilty of contempt of court faces punishment. In a nation like India, the administration of the criminal justice system was in need of an efficient system. As a result of the rules that the court set to safeguard those who were in detention, this case developed into a historic one. Whether a citizen is innocent or is being investigated for a crime, the state has a duty to protect them.
TOPIC- D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal
NAME - Chetna Dubey
INSTITUTION- Delhi Metropolitan Education, GGSIPU
DATE - 29th July 2022
Comments
Post a Comment