• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• CASE NAME - D.K. BASU V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
• CITATION – (1997) 1 SCC 416 [ LANDMARK RULING ON CUSTODIAL DEATH OF A PERSON VIOLATES THE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS]
• PETITIONER – DILIP KUMAR BASU
• RESPONDENT - STATE OF WEST BENGAL
• DATE OF JUDGEMENT - 18th December,1996
• STATUTES OF REFERRED:
  - THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, SECTION 147,149,201,218,220,302,304,330,331,34, AND 342
  - THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SECTION 41,46,49,50,53,54,56,57,167,174 AND 176
  - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 14 AND 21

INTRODUCTION

When a criminal is apprehended, the legal justice system's top priority is that the individual be kept in police detention until a trial can be held for him. Although this is a common way to refer to criminals around the globe, it is important to remember that they are also human. A person who commits a crime does lose some of their rights, but even then, the Indian Constitution forbids reducing a person to humanity. As a result, one of the most significant rights guaranteed by our Constitution—the Right to Life and Liberty—cannot be violated, and that too without the victim getting justice.

Even though this behaviour is utterly wrong, the government pays no attention to the atrocities carried out on those who are apprehended by the police. However, it raises serious questions if someone is killed as a result of such crimes. Police should not torture an offender because of the crime he committed; instead, they should work to stop the offender from committing any additional crimes. The justice system breaks down when the police assume the part of the legal system, especially when they do so without authority. Custodial death is the term used to describe when an individual passes away while in the custody of the police. Additionally, they have been growing in India. To understand the situation of custodial deaths and put an end to them, numerous efforts have been made. The Supreme Court case involving DK Basu and the State of West Bengal was one such incident.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr. Dilip Kumar Basu, the executive chairman of a non-political outfit called Legal Aid Services in West Bengal, delivered a letter to the then Chief Justice of India while keeping in mind the startling increase in deaths while in custody in the country. The letter, dated August 26th, 1986, made reference to certain reports about custodial deaths in a newspaper, specifically the Telegraph Newspaper. In the correspondence, Mr. Basu asked that it be treated as a writ petition under the Public Interest Litigation Act.

While the letter was being examined, Mr. Ashok Kumar Johri entered the picture with a letter in which he repeated the issue and claimed that Mahesh Bihari, of Pilkhana, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, died in custody. The Supreme Court of India regarded this letter along with the letter from Mr. Basu as a writ petition. The Law Commission of India received notices from the Court asking for the formulation of suitable measures to address the situation within two months. The Court also sent notices to all state governments regarding the same.

The state administrations of Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam, Orissa, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, and Meghalaya then submitted a number of affidavits to the Supreme Court. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, who served as the lead attorney for the state administrations, was also named by the Supreme Court as an amicus curiae.

ISSUE RAISED

• WHETHER police personnel be held accountable for violence and death in custody?
• Why are crimes against people who are locked up or in prison getting worse every day?
• Whether custodial death and violence amount to a violation of Article 21 of the detenu?
• Is it necessary to specify any rules in order to initiate an arrest?

ARGUMENT BY THE PETITIONER

The petitioner argued that any individual who suffers mental or physical abuse while confined in a police station must be stopped. The extent of the trauma endured by those people exceeds the ambit of the law. The petitioner further argued that in order to achieve the goal of a civilised society, it is imperative that significant steps be taken toward its eradication.

ARGUMENT BY THE RESPONDENT

Dr. A.M. Singhvi and the attorneys who represented the states said that “everything was good” in each state. Also, they provided some recommendations for the court’s drafting of rules intended to lessen, if any, custodial violence.

JUDGEMENT

In the 1993 case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the court ruled that "any sort of torture or cruel, violent treatment falls within the reach of Article 21, regardless of whether it occurs during interrogation, an investigation, or any other circumstance. The rights guaranteed by Article 21 cannot be denied to those who are awaiting trial, convicted, detained, or otherwise in custody unless the procedure established by law is followed for imposing reasonable restrictions on the right recognised by law.

Only in compliance with the legal provisions could a citizen’s fundamental rights be restricted. The Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration case reflected the same point of view.

In Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P ., it was found that “the police apprehended an individual without any warrant relating the examination of a crime and the detained person has been exposed to agony to removed information or to make a confession” despite the stipulation of procedural requirements.

The mere fact that a police officer is authorised by law to make an arrest does not mean that he has the right to do so arbitrarily; in other words, arrests should not be routine. In this regard, the Supreme court made guidelines for the same.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

Without complying with laws, a person cannot be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty. A person's being denied their right to life breaches the idea of the rule of law since the right to life is more than just the right to live as an animal. The substance of Article 14 of the Constitution, which is based on the idea of equality rather than arbitrariness, is undermined when someone is exposed to arbitrary procedures. Third-degree torture tactics used by the police to coerce confessions from suspects obviously violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

In India, Uttar Pradesh has the highest rate of deaths in custody. In India, the police treat those who have been detained as second-class citizens and frequently try to impose their own rules. More than 50% of those who passed away while in jail, according to figures from India’s National Crime Records Bureau, were never even brought before a magistrate. When people pass away without even receiving justice, it calls into question the fundamental tenets of the nation’s entire governance structure.

Currently, fewer people die while being detained as an outcome of the government’s strict policies and the judiciary’s wise pronouncements. Nonetheless, a significant number of cases continue to go unreported, and occasionally, a case of police use of force is brought to our attention. Although there is still a long way to go, adhering to Constitutional principles can undoubtedly offer a more expeditious solution to the problem of custodial deaths in India.

.    .    .