Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs State of West Bengal, State Of U.P

Advertisements

Title of the Case: –   Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs 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

Appellant: –                 SHRI D.K. BASU, ASHOK K. JOHRI

Respondent: –           STATE OF WEST BENGAL, STATE OF U.P

Bench: –                        Kuldip Singh and Dr. A.S. Anand

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 deaths in police custody and detention that had been published in the Telegraph Newspaper. He asked that the letter be handled as a Writ Petition under the “Public Interest Litigation”.
• Considering the importance of the issues raised in the letter, it was treated as a written Petition and the Defendants were notified.
• Following these problems, a similar situation surfaced in custody in Aligarh, U.P.
• Mr. Ashok Kumar Johri wrote to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the writ petition’s deliberations to draw his attention to the death of Mahesh Bihari from Pilkhana, Aligarh, while he was being held by the police. The identical letter was submitted with D.K. Basu’s request for writing under the same circumstances. The Court issued an order on August 14, 1987, notifying all state governments and the Law Commission of the call for relevant ideas within a two-month term.
• Following the announcement, several states, including West Bengal, Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, and Manipur, filed affidavits.
• In order to help the Court, Dr. A.M. Singh vi, Principal Counsel, was designated Amicus Curiae. All of the solicitors who showed there helped the Court in a useful way.

Issues: –

      . Why do crimes against people in jails or other forms of confinement seem to be becoming worse every day? arbitrariness with which police officers arrest suspects. Is it necessary to define any rules in order to make an arrest?

Contention of Appellant: –

Why does it feel that crimes against those who have been imprisoned or otherwise isolated are becoming worse every day? police officers’ arbitrary arrest of suspects. Are there any regulations that must be established before an arrest may be made, the petitioner also contended that it is preferable to prevent physical and emotional suffering experienced by a person when confined or detained 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 also argued that a civilised nation was necessary and that serious measures should be done to eliminate it.

Contention 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 suggestions for the formulation of guidelines by this court to lessen, if not eliminate, custodial violence and the suffering of those who die in custody as a result of torture and their relatives.

Judgement: –

The court ruled that article 21 applies to all instances of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, including those that take place during inquiries or interrogations. 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.

As a result, the court produced a set of 12 rules that must be observed in every case of arrest and detention along with to the fundamental and constitutional protections. The recommendations are as follows: –

1. Accurate, visible, and clear identity and name tags with their designations shall be worn by the police officers controlling 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 arresting police officer shall make a note of the arrest at the moment of the arrest, such memo shall be attested by at least one witness. Someone could be a member of the arrested person’s family or a reputable member of the community where the arrest was made. 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 has the right 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. Within eight to twelve hours of the arrest, the police must telegraphically notify the local police station and the legal aid organisation in the district of the arrestee’s time, place of arrest, and place of custody if the arrestee’s closest friend or relative lives outside the district or town.
5. As soon as a person is placed under arrest or taken into custody, they must be informed of the right to have someone informed of their arrest or detention.
6. At the location of detention, a note describing the arrest of the person must be recorded in the journal. 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 who are now caring for the arrestee.
7. The arrestee should be inspected at the time of the arrest, if the individual wishes it, and any significant and small injuries that may be present on the person’s body should be noted at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed by the person being arrested as well as the police officer making the arrest, and a copy must be given to the person being arrested.
8. A doctor from the list of recognised doctors nominated by the director, which was 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 across all Tehsils and District as well.
9. The Magistrate should 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 their attorney of choice while being questioned, but not during the interview.
11. All district and state headquarters should include a police control room where the officer making the arrest must immediately transmit information about the arrest and the location of the arrestee in custody.
12. The hours of the arrest shall be posted on an easily visible board in the police control room.

Conclusion: –

As a result, a precedent-setting decision was made in the case, prescribing rules for arrest procedures to prevent such crimes from being perpetrated in the name of justice. Infringement of a person’s rights while they are being held is prevented.  However, now that the legal process has been created, anyone who violates the court’s authority faces repercussions. India’s criminal justice system requires an efficient way to administer it. The bench’s standards, which were intended to safeguard the persons in detention, helped this case develop into a historic one. No matter if a citizen is being investigated for a crime or is simply an innocent bystander, the state has a duty to protect them.

written by Ajeet Kumar intern under legal vidhiya

Admin