Permanent Imprint Leading Cases

Custodial Deaths and any form of torture or cruel, in human or degrading treatment fall within inhibition of article 21 of Constitution of India

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
AIR 1997 SC 610
Judges: Kuldip Singh and A.S. Anand, JJ.
Date of Decision: 18-12-1996

Facts
The Executive Chairman, Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-political organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, on 26th August, 1986 addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India drawing his attention to certain news items published in the Telegraph dated 20, 21 and 22 of July, 1986 and in the Statesman and Indian Express dated 17th August, 1986 regarding deaths in police lock-ups and custody. The Executive Chairman after reproducing the news items submitted that it was imperative to examine the issue in depth and to develop “custody jurisprudence” and formulate modalities for awarding compensation to the victim and/or family members of the victim for atrocities and death caused in police custody and to provide for accountability of the officers concerned. It was also stated in the letter that efforts are often made to hush up the matter of lock-up deaths and thus the crime goes unpunished and “flourishes”. It was requested that the letter along with the news items be treated as a writ petition under “public interest litigation” category.

Considering the importance of the issue raised in the letter and being concerned by frequent complaints regarding custodial violence and deaths in police lock-up, the letter was treated as a writ petition and notice was issued on 9-2-1987 to the respondents.

In response to the notice, the State of West Bengal filed a counter. It was maintained that the police was not hushing up any matter of lock-up death and that wherever police personnel were found to be responsible for such death, action was being initiated against them. The respondents characterised the writ petition as misconceived, misleading and untenable in law.
While the writ petition was under consideration a letter addressed by Shri Ashok Kumar Johri on 29-7-1987 to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India drawing the attention of this Court to the death of one Mahesh Bihari of Pilkhana, Aligarh in police custody was received. That letter was also treated as a writ petition and was directed to be listed along with the writ petition filed by Shri D.K. Basu. On 14-8-1987 this Court made the following order:

“In almost every States there are allegations and these allegations are now increasing in frequency of deaths in custody described generally by newspapers as lock-up deaths. At present there does not appear to be any machinery to effectively deal with such allegations. Since this is an all India question concerning all States, it is desirable to issue notices to all the State Governments to find out whether they desire to say anything in the matter. Let notice issue to all the State Governments. Let notice also issue to the Law Commission of India with a request that suitable suggestions may be made in the matter. Notice be made returnable in two months from today.”

In response to the notice, affidavits have been filed on behalf of the States of West Bengal, Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra and Manipur. Affidavits have also been filed on behalf of
Union Territory of Chandigarh and the Law Commission of India.

During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the Court felt necessity of having assistance from the Bar and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, senior Advocate was requested to assist the court as amicus curiae.

Learned counsel appearing for different States and Dr. Singhvi, as a friend of the Court, presented the case ably and though the effort on the part of the states initially was to show that “everything was well” within their respective States, learned counsel for the parties, as was expected of them in view of the importance of the issue involved, rose above their respective briefs and rendered useful assistance to this Court in examining various facets of the issue and made certain suggestions for formulation of guidelines by this Court to minimise, if not prevent, custodial violence and for award of compensation to the victims of custodial violence and the kith and kin of those who die in custody on account of torture.

The Law Commission of India also in response to the notice issued by this Court forwarded a copy of the 113th Report regarding “Injuries in police custody and suggested incorporation of section 114B in the Indian Evidence Act.”

Issue
Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment the police-man arrests him and can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest.

Judgment
Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rule of Law. The rights inherent in articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot whisk away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic “No”. The precious right guaranteed by article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under-trials, detenue and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.

The court further held that:
Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the Citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the Criminal Courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duly bound to do. The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortuous act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit.

Leave a Comment