D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.

FACTS

The case originated from a letter addressed by the Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, to the Chief Justice of India in 1986. The letter drew attention to alarming news reports regarding deaths in police lock-ups and custody. The submission requested the court to develop "custody jurisprudence" and formulate modalities for awarding compensation to victims' families for atrocities and death caused in police custody, and to provide for accountability of the concerned officers. Another letter concerning a custodial death in Aligarh was later added to the petition.

ISSUE

The main issue pertaining to the current scenario reflected whether custodial violence and death violated the right to life and liberty as mentioned in Article 21 of the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• Violation of Article 21 and Rule of Law:

  • This Hon’ble court observed that custodial violence, including torture and death in lock-ups, strikes a blow to the rule of law, which mandates that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also be limited by law.

  • The continuance of such barbarism is a direct attack on Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and the dignity of the individual.

• Compensation in Public Law:

  • The Court emphasized that public law proceedings serve a different purpose than private law proceedings. The purpose of the former is “not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved”. Civil action for damages is a long-drawn and cumbersome judicial process, making public law remedy necessary for immediate relief and deterrence.

• Mandatory Guidelines (D.K. Basu Guidelines):

  • Relying on Article 21, this Hon'ble court issued detailed, mandatory directions (Guidelines) to be followed by all police authorities in all cases of arrest or detention as preventive measures against custodial violence.

  • The Court opined that failure to comply with such requirements would not only render the officials liable for departmental action but also for contempt of court.

CASES REFERRED

• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.: Observed that: “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so... No arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.”

• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa: Stated that prisoners and detenus are not denied their fundamental rights under Article 21 and only such restrictions as are permitted by law can be imposed on the enjoyment of their fundamental rights.

{pg 1205, 1206, 1207, Indian Constitutional Law by MP Jain} {pg 219, Constitution of India, VN Shukla}