Use Of Body Cameras And Police Accountability
1. Meaning
An unlawful (or illegal) arrest and detention occurs when a person is taken into custody without lawful authority, without following due procedure, or without reasonable justification as required by law.
In criminal jurisprudence (especially in common-law jurisdictions such as India, UK, and others), arrest is a serious intrusion on personal liberty. Therefore, strict compliance with legal safeguards is mandatory.
2. Legal Principles Governing Lawful Arrest
A. Reasonable Suspicion
Police must have reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime.
B. Procedure of Arrest
Authorities must:
Identify themselves,
Inform the reason for arrest,
Show a warrant if required,
Produce the arrested person before a magistrate within the statutory period (e.g., 24 hours in India),
Not use excessive force.
C. Constitutional Rights
Right to life and personal liberty
Protection against arbitrary detention
Right to legal counsel
Right to be informed of charges
D. Judicial Scrutiny
Courts can question:
Motives for arrest,
Adequacy of grounds,
Compliance with statutory requirements.
3. DETAILED CASE LAW DISCUSSION
Below are seven major cases explaining the principles of unlawful arrest and detention.
CASE 1: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Jurisdiction: India
Principle: Guidelines for arrest and custodial safeguards
Facts:
D.K. Basu, an NGO chairman, wrote to the Supreme Court highlighting multiple incidents of death and torture in police custody.
Held:
The Supreme Court framed mandatory arrest guidelines to prevent unlawful detention, including:
Police must prepare an arrest memo,
The arrested person has the right to inform a friend or relative,
Medical examination every 48 hours,
Police officer must wear name tags,
Entry into station diary regarding arrest.
Relevance:
Any violation of these guidelines renders the arrest illegal and invites departmental and criminal action. The Court emphasized that custodial torture is the worst form of human rights violation.
CASE 2: Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994)
Principle: Arrest must not be routine — police must justify necessity.
Facts:
Joginder Kumar was taken by police for questioning but was kept in custody for several days without justification. His family filed a writ of habeas corpus.
Held:
The Supreme Court held:
Arrest must be justified; mere power to arrest is not sufficient.
Police must have reasonable justification considering:
The need for custody,
Whether the person is likely to abscond,
Threat to witnesses or investigation.
Relevance:
This case is widely cited to challenge unnecessary arrests, especially in minor offences.
CASE 3: Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983)
Principle: Illegal detention is actionable; compensation may be awarded.
Facts:
Rudal Shah was acquitted by a criminal court but was kept in jail for over 14 years without any legal basis.
Held:
The Supreme Court awarded compensation for violation of fundamental rights (Article 21).
It held that:
Courts can award monetary compensation for unlawful detention,
Illegal detention is a direct violation of personal liberty.
Relevance:
This case laid down the foundation for compensation for violation of constitutional rights.
CASE 4: Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab (1966)
Principle: Arrest without warrant requires strict compliance with statutory conditions.
Facts:
The accused was arrested without a warrant on the basis of suspicion, but the police did not justify the arrest.
Held:
The court held that:
Police must show reasonable suspicion,
Grounds for suspicion must be verified and recorded.
Relevance:
Any arrest without warrant made casually or mechanically becomes unlawful.
CASE 5: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
Principle: Detention without trial violates the right to personal liberty.
Facts:
Several undertrial prisoners were detained for years without trial, many for periods exceeding the maximum punishment for their alleged offences.
Held:
The Supreme Court held:
Detention without speedy trial violates Article 21.
The State is responsible for ensuring timely trials.
Ordered release of thousands of undertrials.
Relevance:
Prolonged detention without trial = unlawful detention.
CASE 6: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Principle: State liability for custodial death or unlawful detention.
Facts:
The petitioner’s son was taken into police custody and later found dead on railway tracks. The police denied responsibility.
Held:
The Supreme Court held:
State is liable for violation of fundamental rights.
Compensation is a public law remedy, not dependent on civil or criminal proceedings.
Relevance:
This case strengthened the principle that the State cannot escape liability for illegal custody and detention.
CASE 7: R v. Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No.2) (2001, UK)
Principle: Even detention caused by a genuine mistake of law is unlawful.
Facts:
A prisoner was detained beyond the lawful release date due to miscalculation by prison authorities.
Held:
The House of Lords ruled:
Detention becomes unlawful even if caused by a bona fide administrative error.
The state owes compensation for false imprisonment.
Relevance:
This case is vital in understanding that intent is irrelevant; what matters is lawfulness of the detention.
Conclusion
Unlawful arrest and detention violate the fundamental right to liberty. Courts across jurisdictions have held that:
Arrest must be necessary and reasonable,
Procedures must be followed strictly,
Violations attract compensation and disciplinary action,
The State is accountable even for administrative mistakes.
RELATED Blog
comments