Landmark Judgments On Custodial Deaths
1. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Summary: This landmark case laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths and to ensure accountability.
Details:
The Supreme Court intervened in response to frequent custodial deaths and human rights violations.
The Court issued detailed directions including:
Police must prepare a memo of arrest, attested by a witness.
The arrested person’s family or friend must be informed of the arrest.
Medical examination of the detainee upon arrest and every 48 hours thereafter is mandatory.
Police officials involved must wear clear identification badges.
Periodic inspection of lock-ups by independent authorities.
These guidelines were aimed at preventing custodial violence and ensuring transparency.
Significance: DK Basu is the foundational judgment that strengthened safeguards against custodial deaths and improved police accountability.
2. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Summary: This judgment dealt with police reforms, emphasizing the need to prevent custodial violence and deaths.
Details:
The Supreme Court directed various police reforms including setting up State Security Commissions, Police Establishment Boards, and introducing fixed tenure for officers.
The Court underscored that such reforms are essential to curb misuse of police power, including custodial torture and deaths.
It also reiterated adherence to DK Basu guidelines in all arrests and detentions.
Significance: This judgment linked structural reforms in policing with the prevention of custodial deaths and ensured that accountability mechanisms are institutionalized.
3. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Summary: This case dealt with compensation and state liability for custodial death due to police brutality.
Details:
The Supreme Court held that custodial death is a grave violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to life).
The Court imposed liability on the state to pay compensation to the victim’s family, emphasizing that police officers cannot act with impunity.
It asserted that compensation is a form of restitution and deterrence against future violations.
Significance: Nilabati Behera was among the first judgments recognizing state responsibility and awarding compensation for custodial deaths.
4. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
Summary: This case emphasized the protection of personal liberty and prevention of illegal detention leading to custodial harm.
Details:
The Court held that police must follow strict guidelines while arresting a person to avoid arbitrary detention and custodial torture.
It stressed the importance of judicial oversight and timely production of the arrested person before a magistrate.
Illegal detention or custodial torture was condemned as a serious violation of constitutional rights.
Significance: This case reinforced safeguards against unlawful custody, a critical factor often linked to custodial deaths.
5. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Summary: This judgment dealt with custodial interrogation methods and protection against torture leading to death.
Details:
The Court ruled that involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests violate Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination) and Article 21.
It held that consent for such tests must be voluntary, and coerced confessions or information are inadmissible.
The ruling protects detainees from abusive interrogation practices often linked to custodial torture and deaths.
Significance: Selvi extended protections in custody, aiming to prevent physical and psychological harm during police interrogations.
Summary of Judicial Approach to Custodial Deaths:
Courts have established strict procedural safeguards during arrest and detention to prevent custodial deaths.
Police accountability and state liability have been emphasized, including awarding compensation to victims’ families.
Police reforms and institutional mechanisms are necessary to curb custodial violence.
Protection against torture and illegal detention is a constitutional imperative.
Courts also regulate interrogation methods to prevent abuse that can lead to custodial deaths.
RELATED Blog
0 comments