Human Rights Compliance In Criminal Investigations
⚖️ Overview: Human Rights in Criminal Investigations
Fundamental Human Rights Relevant:
Right to life and personal liberty (Article 21, Constitution of India)
Right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3))
Right to a fair trial
Protection against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
Right to legal counsel
Legal Safeguards:
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): regulates arrests, detention, investigation.
Indian Evidence Act: protects against forced confessions.
Supreme Court and High Courts have laid down guidelines to prevent custodial abuse.
International human rights treaties influence interpretation of domestic laws.
📚 Case Studies Demonstrating Judicial Protection of Human Rights in Investigations
1. D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997)
Significance: Landmark guidelines on arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
Facts:
Numerous cases of custodial deaths and torture in West Bengal prompted judicial intervention.
Judgment:
Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines for police on arrest, detention, and interrogation.
Guidelines include:
Arrest memo with time and signature of witness.
Medical examination of the accused at the time of arrest and every 48 hours.
Police must inform family/friend of the arrest.
Right to legal counsel from the moment of arrest.
Police officer responsible for custody should be identifiable.
Impact:
Enforced compliance with Article 21 during investigation.
Reduced instances of custodial torture.
Influential in police reforms nationwide.
2. Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts:
Use of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping in criminal investigations was challenged as violation of rights.
Legal Issue:
Whether these techniques violate right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) and right to privacy under Article 21.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled these techniques cannot be forced or involuntary.
Consent must be voluntary, and subjects have the right to refuse.
Results cannot be used as evidence unless corroborated.
Protection against self-incrimination is fundamental.
Impact:
Strengthened human rights protections during investigation.
Regulated scientific interrogation methods.
Protected suspects from invasive, coercive techniques.
3. Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994)
Facts:
Kartar Singh was arrested under TADA and alleged torture and forced confessions.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that confessions made to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Evidence obtained by coercion, torture or illegal means is inadmissible.
Emphasized right to fair investigation and protection against custodial torture.
Impact:
Reaffirmed that investigation methods must comply with human rights norms.
Prevented the use of torture-induced confessions.
4. Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa (1993)
Facts:
Custodial death of Nilabati Behera’s son due to police torture.
Judgment:
Supreme Court awarded compensation to the victim’s family.
Held police custodial deaths violate Article 21.
Recognized compensation as a remedy for violation of fundamental rights.
Impact:
Affirmed state accountability in investigation-related human rights abuses.
Encouraged more humane police conduct.
5. Zeenat Siddiqui vs. State of UP (2017)
Facts:
Complaint of custodial rape by police during investigation.
Judgment:
Supreme Court reiterated zero tolerance for custodial sexual violence.
Ordered immediate inquiry and compensation.
Directed police reforms and victim support mechanisms.
Impact:
Reinforced safeguards against sexual violence in custody.
Strengthened procedural safeguards in criminal investigations.
🔑 Key Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Protection against torture | Arrest and detention must be free from torture, cruelty, and degrading treatment. |
| Right to legal counsel | Suspects must have immediate access to lawyers during all investigative stages. |
| Prohibition of forced confessions | Confessions to police are inadmissible; protection under Article 20(3) is absolute. |
| Procedural safeguards | Arrest memos, medical examinations, informing family, and recording custody details mandatory. |
| Compensation for rights violations | Courts can award monetary relief for violation of human rights during investigations. |
| Voluntary consent for scientific tests | Narco-analysis and similar tests require consent and cannot be forced or relied upon solely. |
Conclusion
Judicial pronouncements have been pivotal in ensuring that criminal investigations uphold human rights standards. Through detailed guidelines and strict scrutiny, courts have sought to eliminate custodial torture, protect suspects’ dignity, and maintain fair procedure. This has enhanced the credibility of the justice system while safeguarding individual freedoms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments