Supreme Court of India Lays Down Landmark Guidelines to Prevent Custodial Torture and Deaths, Mandates Compensation for Victims

In a historic verdict in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court emphasizes safeguarding fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22, introduces procedural safeguards for arrested persons, and orders compensation for custodial rights violations.

In a path-breaking judgment delivered on December 18, 1996, the Supreme Court of India in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal has addressed the pervasive problem of custodial violence, torture, and deaths in police custody, issuing a comprehensive set of guidelines aimed at ensuring transparency, accountability, and protection of fundamental rights of arrested persons.

The writ petition was initiated following a letter from the Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, drawing attention to frequent reports of deaths in police lock-ups and demanding the formulation of “custody jurisprudence” to curb such human rights violations. The Court treated this as a public interest litigation and issued notices to various State Governments and the Law Commission of India. Multiple affidavits were filed by States and Union Territories, acknowledging the problem and suggesting reforms.

The Supreme Court recognized custodial violence as a gross violation of human dignity and fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 22 (protection against arbitrary arrest and detention) of the Constitution of India. It held that these rights cannot be suspended or denied even after arrest and that torture - both physical and mental - within police custody is an affront to the Rule of Law and civilized society.

A salient feature of the judgment is the detailed procedural safeguards that the Court mandated to be followed during arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture:

1. Police personnel involved in arrest and interrogation must display accurate, visible name tags and their details must be recorded.

2. A memo of arrest must be prepared at the time of arrest, attested by at least one witness (family member or a respectable local person), and counter-signed by the arrestee, recording the time and date.

3. The arrestee has a right to inform a friend or relative about the arrest and detention, and if the witness to the memo is a friend or relative, additional notification is not required.

4. Where the friend or relative lives outside the district, the police must notify the relevant Legal Aid Organization and police station within 8 to 12 hours.

5. The arrested person must be made aware of the right to have someone informed.

6. An entry must be made in the detention diary recording the arrest, details of the police officials in custody, and the person informed.

7. The arrestee should be examined for injuries at arrest, and an “Inspection Memo” signed by both the arrestee and police officer must be given to the arrestee.

8. A medical examination every 48 hours by an approved doctor is mandatory during detention.

9. Copies of all arrest-related documents must be sent to the local Magistrate.

10. The arrestee may meet a lawyer during interrogation, though not continuously.

11. Police control rooms must be established at district and state headquarters to display information about arrests within 12 hours.

Failure to comply with these requirements can result in departmental action and contempt of court proceedings.

The Court also acknowledged the complex realities faced by the police, including tackling terrorism and organized crime, but emphatically rejected torture or “third degree methods” as impermissible and unconstitutional. The judgment emphasized the importance of scientific and humane interrogation techniques consistent with constitutional guarantees.

On the issue of compensation, the Supreme Court established that the State is vicariously liable for violations of fundamental rights by its functionaries and sovereign immunity does not protect it in such cases. The Court judicially evolved the principle that victims or their families are entitled to monetary compensation under public law for custodial torture or death, as a strict liability of the State. This remedy is in addition to any private law action for damages. Compensation aims at providing solace and remedy to victims and is not a substitute for criminal prosecution of the offenders.

The judgment drew upon international human rights standards, comparative law from England, Ireland, New Zealand, and Trinidad and Tobago, and previous Indian Supreme Court rulings including Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, Neelabati Behera v. State of Orissa, and Joginder Kumar v. State to underscore the constitutional imperatives to prevent custodial violence.

The Court also urged the Parliament to consider statutory amendments, such as the Law Commission’s recommendation of Section 114B to the Indian Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof in custodial injury cases to the accused police officials.

This verdict has been hailed as a milestone in the protection of human rights in India, imposing a constitutional obligation on the police and all law enforcement agencies to uphold the dignity and fundamental rights of arrested persons. It has significantly influenced police reforms and custodial jurisprudence in India.

Statutory provisions: Articles 21, 22, 32, 226 of the Constitution of India; Sections 41, 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 167, 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Sections 220, 330, 331 of the Indian Penal Code; Indian Evidence Act (recommendation for insertion of Section 114B).

This report summarizes the Supreme Court’s judgment with focus on its legal and social impact, procedural safeguards mandated, and the principle of compensation for custodial rights violations.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 40885