DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610

DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610

Citation	AIR 1997 SC 610.
Date of Judgement	01/08/1997.
Court	Supreme Court
Case type	Writ Petition (Crl.) no. 592 of 1987.
Appellant	Shri Dilip Kumar Basu etc. Ashok k. Johari.
Respondent	State of West Bengal.
Bench	A.S. Anand , K.T. Thomas.
Referred	Section – 41, 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 167, 174, and 176.

FACTS OF THE CASE :

In a letter to the Supreme Court of India, DK Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-political organization, drew his attention to some news stories that had been published regarding fatalities in prison and police custody. He asked that the letter be handled as a Writ Petition in the “Public Interest Litigation”. In the meantime, Mr. Ashok Kumar Johri wrote to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to alert him to the death of Mahesh Bihari from Pilkhana, Aligarh, while he was being held by the police.  Both letters were handled as writ petitions due to the seriousness of the issues they raised.

Several states, including West Bengal, Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, and Manipur, submitted affidavits in response to the announcement. Dr. A.M. Singhi, Principal Counsel, was also nominated as an Amicus Curiae to support the Court.

ISSUES:

1. Why are crimes against people in jails or other detention facilities getting worse every day?

• The police’s arbitrary use of force when making an arrest.

• Is it necessary to define any rules in order to make an arrest?

ARGUMENTS :

The concerns stated in the writ case centered on the issue of custody deaths and their rising frequency, while also highlighting the requirement for precise rules to control police arrests and prevent arbitrariness on the part of the police. The petitioner’s arguments claimed that the mental suffering and torment that an arrested person goes through in police custody is unbearable and that it should be prevented at all costs. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the circumstance was “fine” according to the respective states. However, because there weren’t any regulations governing custodial fatalities at the time, the Apex Court decided in favor of the petitioners by relying on a few decisions.

JUDGMENT :

The Supreme Court cited the decision in Neelabati Behra v. State of Orissa[2], which determined that torture in any form and cruel or inhumane treatment of people who had been arrested violated their constitutional rights, particularly Article 21. Only in line with the terms of the law could citizens have their fundamental rights restricted. The Sunil Batra v. The Delhi Administration case revealed the same point of view.

The Supreme Court also brought up the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh[4], in which it was determined that police personnel were making arrests without warrants despite the fact that procedural guidelines for criminal arrests had already been established. Arrests shouldn’t be commonplace; just because a police officer is authorized by law to make an arrest does not mean that he can make an arrest without justification.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court established the following rules for police to adhere to when making arrests and keeping people in custody:

1) All information on the police personnel involved in an arrest by the police must be precise and unambiguous. Their name tags must read correctly, and a register should contain a record of their personal information.

2) The arresting police officer is required to immediately write up a memo of the arrest, which must be seen by at least one person. This witness could be a member of the detained person’s family or a well-respected local from the area where they were arrested.

3) When a person is arrested and put in custody by the police, he has a right to inform either his family member, or his friend or anyone known to him, of the arrest and of the place where he is put in custody.

4) The detained person is to be made aware of the abovementioned right as soon as he is arrested.

5) If the family member, or friend, or the person known to the arrested person lives outside the district or town, then the time and date as well as the place of custody of the arrested person must be made known to such person through the Legal Aid Organisation of the district. 

6) A diary must be kept at the scene of the arrest with information about the arrest and the person who was taken into custody. 

7) If the individual in custody desires it, he or she must have any injuries or marks on their bodies evaluated and documented. The arrested person and the police officer in charge of the arrest must both sign this examination, known as the “Inspection Memo,” and a copy must be sent to the detained person.

8) A trained physician selected from a panel of physicians authorized by the Director of Health Services of the relevant state shall conduct a medical examination of the detainee every 48 hours while they are in custody. 

9) Copies of every document should be provided to the local magistrate for his files.

10) The arrested person is permitted to speak with his or her attorney while being questioned, as long as the conversation does not last the entire time.

11) There must be a police control room in every district and state police headquarters, and the police officer in charge of the arrest is required to give the details of the person within 12 hours of the arrest. The aforementioned information must be posted on a board in the control room.

CONCLUSION : 

The Supreme Court found that a person’s death while in custody violates their fundamental rights and is unlawful in its ruling in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal. The police should not inflict any form of torture on anyone who is being held by the government because doing so specifically violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In order for police arrest processes to be followed, the Supreme Court imposed instructions that were tighter and more detailed.

This article is written by Avantika Gaur of Aligarh Muslim University, intern at Legal Vidhiya.