Legal Method: Case Study- D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal

 This article is written by Amisha Gupta pursuing B.A.LL.B from George School of Law (Calcutta University).

D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal

[(1997) 1 SCC 417:AIR 1997 SC 610:1996(9) SCALE] Justice Kuldip Singh & Justice A.S. Anand

Brief facts of the case:

Dr. D.K. Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services of West Bengal, a non-political Organisation address a letter to Chief Justice drawing his attention to certain news items published in the Telegraph, the Statesman and The Indian Express regarding deaths in police lockups and custody. This letter was treated as a writ petition by the court.

Issue of the case:

• Whether, the crimes against persons in lockups or custody increasing day by day ?
• Whether, there is any arbitrariness of Policemen in arresting a person?
• Whether, there is any need to specify some guidelines to make an arrest?

Judgement:

The Apex Court assuming this letter as Public Interest litigation expressed its grave concern against such patent violation of human rights and fundamental freedom of the citizens. The situation is aggravated when violence occurs within the four walls of a police station by those who are supposed to protect citizens. The state has a duty to pay monetary compensation to repair the wrong done by its agent in not being able to discharge their public duty of upholding people's right. The Court directed guidelines in respect of arrest and interrogation.

Guidelines:

Following guidelines have been laid down by the Court to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legislative measures are taken:

1. The police personnel carrying out the rest and handling the interrogation of the RST should wear accurate visible and clear identification and named as with their designation and must be recorded in a register.
2. The police officer carrying out the arrest shall prepare a memo of arrest, at the time of arrest, and shall be attested by at least one witnessed who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made.
3. Arrestee shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him being informed, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place.
4. The time place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee leaves outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the district and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
5. The person arrested must be aware of his right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention.
6. An entry must be made in the diary at the place of the tension regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the arrestee's friend, who has been informed of the arrest and the names land particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
7. The arrestee should, where we so requests, we also examine at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
8. The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by the trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctor appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. The Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and District as well.
9. Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Magistrate for his record.
10. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
11. A police control room should be provided at all District and State headquarters where information regarding the arrest and the venue of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officers causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

The court made it clear that failure to comply with the above guidelines, apart from rendering the official concerned liable for departmental action, would also render him liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court could be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

__________________________________________

References:

• Babu Sarkar's - Legal Method & Legal Research Methodology, Marketed by : N.M. Roychowdhury Co., Published by Manash Dutta: Moon Law Agency, First edition June, 2014 , Reprint 2018.
• Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari - Legal Method, Published by Central Law Home, 3rd reprint 2017.
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/501198/
• https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b33ce561097e45a4e365