D. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal

Bench: Justice Kuldip Singh and

Justice A. S. Anand

Case no: writ petition (Crl.) No. 539 of 1986, writ petition (Crl.) No. 592 of 1987.

Court: Supreme court of India

Case Title: D. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal

Date of Judgement: 18 December 1996

Key parties involved:

Petitioner: D. K. Basu

Respondent: State of West Bengal

Legal Issues: The Supreme Court examined several legal issues related to the misuse of police power:

Violation of fundamental rights: The core issue was whether custodial torture and death constituted a violation of fundamental rights, particularly the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and the procedural safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution.

State’s vicarious liability: The court considered if the state could be held vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its police officers, which infringe upon a citizen’s fundamental rights, and whether the defence of sovereign immunity was applicable.

Compensation for victims: The court also addressed the issue of awarding compensation to victims of custodial violence or their families for the infringement of fundamental rights by state agents.

Need for preventive guidelines: A central question was whether there was a need for a new set of rules and guidelines to prevent police brutality and ensure the dignity of detainees.

Arguments

Petitioner:

• Violation of human rights: The petitioner, an advocate and Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, argued that police brutality and custodial deaths were a gross violation of human rights. These actions were arbitrary, inhuman, and degraded the dignity of individuals in custody.
• Systemic problem: Citing widespread news reports, the petitioner highlighted that custodial violence was a systemic issue across India, not just an isolated incident.
• Third-degree methods: The petitioner contended that police often used third-degree torture methods to extract confessions, which is against scientific and humane principles.
• State accountability: It was argued that the state has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens, including those in custody. When this duty is violated by its agents, the state must be held vicariously liable and must compensate the victims.

Respondent:

• Existing safeguards: The states and union territories argued that existing procedures and legal provisions were sufficient to handle such matters.
• Operational challenges: They claimed that police often operated under pressure and faced challenges like inadequate resources, which could lead to isolated incidents of excess. They denied that custodial violence was a sanctioned practice.
• No need for further restrictions: The respondents argued that placing further restrictions on police powers could hinder their ability to investigate crimes effectively.
• Internal action sufficient: It was also contended that whenever an officer was found guilty of misconduct, appropriate action was initiated against them.

Judgement:

• The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment delivered in 1996, acknowledged the gravity of custodial torture and issued a series of binding guidelines to be followed by all law enforcement agencies throughout India.
• Declared custodial violence a violation of Article 21: The court unequivocally held that any form of custodial torture, violence, or death is a direct and egregious violation of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Established 11 mandatory guidelines: The court laid down detailed procedural safeguards for police during arrest and detention. Some key guidelines include:
• Police personnel must have clear, visible identification and name tags.
• A memo of arrest must be prepared, attested by a witness (preferably a family member or respectable local person), and counter-signed by the arrested person.
• The arrested person has the right to inform a friend or relative about their arrest.
• A medical examination must be conducted by a doctor every 48 hours during detention.
• The arrestee should be permitted to meet their lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the entire process.
• District and State Police Control Rooms must be established to provide information on arrested persons.
• Established state’s liability: The court ruled that the state could be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its officers and that the defence of sovereign immunity would not apply in cases of fundamental rights violations.
• Right to compensation: It was held that victims of custodial abuse or their families are entitled to compensation from the state for the violation of their fundamental rights.

Conclusion:

The D.K. Basu judgment was a turning point for human rights in India, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as a protector of fundamental rights. The guidelines, initially judicial directives, were later incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in 2008, cementing their legal enforceability.

• Increased accountability: The ruling increased the accountability of law enforcement by mandating clear procedures and documentation during arrests.
• Preventive framework: It created a preventive framework against custodial violence by prioritizing human dignity even for those accused of crimes.
• Empowerment of citizens: By mandating awareness campaigns, the judgment empowered citizens and increased public consciousness regarding their rights during arrest.