D.K. Basu vS. State of West Bengal(1977)

Case details –
Citation: – AIR 1997 SC 610, (1997) 1 SCC 416
Bench: – Justice A.S. Anand and Justice Kuldip Singh
Petitioner: – SHRI D.K. BASU,ASHOK K. JOHRI
Respondent: – STATE OF WEST BENGAL,STATE OF U.P.
Year: – 1997
Court: – Supreme Court of India

Facts of the Case
D.K. Basu v. state of West Bengal case is widely considered a landmark in
criminal jurisprudence. The guideline established in D.K. Basu v. state of west
Bengal were later integrated into the CRPC, 1973 through the Code of Criminal
Procedure (amendment act) 2008 effective from Nov. 1 , 2010. This case is
emphasised the importance of protecting fundamental eights under the
constitution of India, especially Article 21 which ensured the right to life and
personal liberty.

• A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filled by a Non – Governmental
  Organization (NGO) to bring matter of custodial violence an death of
  prisoners before the Supreme court. The PIL dealt with the issue that the
  fundamental right and human rights of prisoners are violated and they
  face torture , rape , and even death in police lock up and custody.
• DK Basu was the executive chairman of legal aid service, West Bengal , a
  non political organization. He addressed a letter to the Supreme Court of
  India drawing the courts attention to a piece of news published in
  various newspaper about deaths in police custody and lockups
• He sent the letter Chief Justice of India , Justice Ranganath Mishra after
  the several deaths in 1986 and recommended that the court should
  develop “custodial jurisprudence “ and formulate modes for awarding
  compensation.
  Article 21 – “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
  according to procedure established by law.”
  Custodial Violence – “Custodial violence is defined as, any violence including
  torture, death, or rape by police authorities on inmates while their stay in the
  judicial or police custody. Violence includes both physical and mental torture,
  and in many cases we have seen that it has resulted in the death of the
  individual.”
  

Issue OF the Case

• Whether custodial violence and death violate the right to life and
  personal liberty mentioned under Article 21 of our Constitution?
• Whether there an increase in cases of custodial deaths and violence?
• Is there a need for guidelines governing the arrest and custody of
  detainees?
• Should police officers be held responsible for custodial deaths and
  violence?

Judgement of the Case

➢ The Supreme court referred to the case of Neelabati Bahera v. State of
Orissa AIR 1993 SC 1960 and reiterated that prisoners and detainees
should not be deprived of their Fundamental Rights under Article 21 and
only the restriction permitted by law could be imposed on the
enjoyment of their fundamental rights.
➢ The judgement by the bench of the justice A.S. Anand and Justice Kuldip
Singh was composed of two parts : establishing procedural safeguards
and elaborating a system of compensation for police abuse. The
judgement emphasized the global effort against torture. It was upheld
that detainees have the fundamental rights protected , only legally
permissible restrictions can be impose on the enjoyment

❖ Guidelines given by the Apex Court in cases of arrest and
detention :-

1. The police officer who arrests a person should bear proper name tags and
   designations so that they can be easily identified. The particulars of the officers
   who will interrogate must be recorded in a register.
2. An arrest memo should be prepared by the police officer carrying out the
   arrest. The memo shall also be attested by at least one witness including either
   a family member or a respectable person of the society from where the arrest
   is made.
3. The person arrested will have the right to inform any of his close friends or
   relatives about his arrest as early as possible.
4. Every detail regarding the arrest like the time, place of arrest and venue of
   custody of the arrestee must be notified by the police. Where the next friend
   or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town, they should also be
   informed within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest through the legal aid
5. organisation in the district and the police station of the area concerned
6. telegraphically.
7. An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the
   arrest of the person as well as the particulars of the friend or relative who has
   the information about the arrest. The police officers under whose custody the
   arrestee is shall also be mentioned.
8. On request, examination can be conducted on the arrestee and every detail
   regarding any major or minor injury on the body of the arrestee shall be
   recorded. The inspection memo must be signed by both the arrestee and the
   police officer affecting the arrest and Its copy must be provided to the arrestee.
9. Within 48 hours of detention, a medical examination should be performed
   on the arrestee by a trained doctor. The medical examination can also be
   performed by a doctor appointed by the Director of Health Services of the
   concerned state.
10. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation
    though not throughout the Interrogation.
11. A police control room should be set up at all districts and state headquarters
    so as to collect information regarding the arrest and place of custody of the
    arrestee. The information shall be communicated by the officer causing the
    arrest within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and it should be displayed
    conspicuously on the notice board of the police control room.

Conclusion:-

The DK Basu case is regarded as the most landmark case of the criminal
jurisprudence. The guidelines laid down in the case have been incorporated in
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2008. Before, DK Basu case there had been instances of
custodial violence and deaths; in some cases compensation was also awarded
however, there wasn’t any provision or rule to impose liability regarding the
same. The present case was the need of the hour wherein the Supreme Court
laid down guidelines regarding custodial deaths and violence so to put to rest
this issue for once and for all. This was the pioneer case to impose liability
upon the police
However, after this case, the instances of custodial death and violence have
reduced but it didn’t stop. Some of the guidelines have been limited to mere
paper regulations.
Famous Bollywood movies like “Gangajal” and “Jai Bhim” have portrayed
police brutality and custodial deaths. Police officers in rural areas should be
trained about these guidelines more properly. People residing in rural areas are
not so aware of their rights so officers there get a chance to overpower them.
Illiteracy is always a curse on society. Besides the officers, the detainees should
be also aware of their rights while they are detained. Knowing of the
individual rights properly and proper implementation of the guidelines given
in DK Basu would definitely help us to overcome this problem.