CASE

ANALYSIS

Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri

vs
State Of West Bengal,
State Of U.P

BY:
DEEPIKA . K
BCOM LLB
20201BCL0006
 INTRODUCTION

Deaths that occurred during the

custody of police authorities are
an important and significant
matter of concern in the present
scenario. It is more aggravating
as committed by the protectors
of society.This is a landmark
judgment given by the Apex
court in the case of an increasing
number of custodial deaths in
India. In this case, it was
observed by the court that there
is no effective mechanism
proposed by the legislation to
deal with the cases of custodial
deaths in India.
 FACTS:
DK Basu was the Executive Chairman of Legal Aid
Services, West Bengal, a non-political organization.
On 26/08/1986, he addressed a letter to the
Supreme Court of India drawing the courts
attention to a piece of news published in the
Telegraph Newspaper dated 20, 21 and 22 of July
1986 and in the Statesman and India Express dated
17th August 1986 about deaths in police custody
and lockups.

In the letter, it was mentioned that such crimes of

custodial violence always went unpunished despite
the efforts made and urged the courts to look into
the matter so that the family members of the
victims are given some form of compensation. He
requested that the letter be treated as a Writ
Petition within the “Public Interest Litigation”
category.
Considering the significance of the issues brought
up in the letter, it was treated as a written petition
and the defendants were informed.

While the writ petition was being considered, Mr.

Ashok Kumar Johri addressed a letter to the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court by highlighting the
death of a man named Mahesh Bihari from Aligarh
in police custody. The letter was also treated as a
Request for Writing and was included along with
D.K. Basu’s Request for Writing.

On 14/08/1987 the Court issued an order to all

state governments and a notice was also issued to
the Law Commission requesting appropriate
suggestions and guidelines within two months.

In response to the notification, several states

submitted affidavits, including West Bengal,
Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil
Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, and Manipur.

Also, Dr. A.M. Singh, Principal Counsel was

appointed as the Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
 ISSUES RAISED :

Why are crimes against

persons in police custody
increasing?

Is there any need to specify

some guidelines to make an
arrest?
 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER :

There was concern over the police

powers and it was stated that physical
and mental agony suffered by a
person in a police station or any
confinement should be avoided.
It was argued that compensation
should be provided to the victims if
there has been any violation of their
rights mentioned in Article 21 and
Article 22 of the constitution.
Regardless of whether it is an actual
physical attack, rape, mental torture
or whatsoever in the police custody,
the extent of the injury is beyond the
extent of the law.
The petitioner further contended that
in a ‘civilized society’, such heinous
crimes should be eliminated.

 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT

They presented their respective briefs

and provided useful assistance to the
Court in examining various facets of the
issue and made certain suggestions for
formulation of guidelines to minimize, if
not prevent, custodial violence and kith
and kin of those who die in custody due
to torture.
The defendants stated that the writ
petition was misconceived, inappropriate
and misleading in law, thus denied the
allegations raised against them.
In order to defend the fall of the
administrative wing, the State of West
Bengal made an attempt to convey that
there are no deaths in the confinements
and even if there were any, then an
investigation should be carried out on
whoever did it.

 JUDGEMENT
The bench consisting of KULDIP SINGH
and A.S.ANAND JJ felt it extremely
important to bring transparency in the
structure so the court decided to
implement effective machinery for
recording and notification of all the
detention and arrest cases. The court
issued some guidelines/propositions to
safeguard the detenus and prisoners.
The guidelines are as follows:

The arrested person has a right to

meet his lawyer.
The arrestee has a right to be
medically examined every 48 hours.
The arrestee has to be produced
before the magistrate within 24
hours.
An arresting person has to inform
the relatives of the arrestee.
A memo must be made at the time
of the arrest.
The memo, along with other relevant
documents, must be sent to the
magistrate.

A police control room must be set up in all

the districts and information about the
prisoners and detenus has to be
communicated to all the districts.

Entry must be made regarding the arrest

in the diary.

The arresting officer has to carry a badge

which clearly indicates his name and
designation while making an arrest.

Place and time of arrest has to be notified

to any friend or relative of the arrestee by
the arresting officer.

The arrestee has to be made aware of his

right to have someone notified regarding
the arrest and the procedure on his
behalf.
CONCLUSION :
The case thus gave a landmark
judgement where guidelines regarding
the arrest of of a person were
prescribed otherwise more offences
were committed in the name of doing
justice. It prevents any infringement
with the rights of an individual during
detention. Although now, the proper
procedure has been established by law
and anyone who does contempt of court
is liable to be punished. The
administration of the criminal system
existing in a country like India needed
an effective mechanism. This case
evolved as a landmark case as the
guidelines issued by the bench aimed to
protect the people in custody. It is an
obligation of the state to protect the
citizens, either they are accused of an
offence or a normal innocent person.
THANK
YOU