1. Monitoring implementation of requirements to prevent custodial violence and protect arrestees' rights. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1488
Supreme Court Of India
DR A.S. Anand, CJI., N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ
Record of Proceedings
DILIP K. BASU AND OTHERS --Petitioners:
Versus
STATE OF W.B. AND OTHERS Respondents.
Crl. MPs. Nos. 4201 of 1997, 4105 of 1999, 2600-01 of 2000,480 and 12704 of 2001 in WPs (Crl.) Nos. 539 of 1986 and 592 of 1987,
Decided on October 19, 2001
The Court mandated that State Human Rights Commissions or High Court-appointed committees oversee the implementation of judicial guidelines preventing custodial violence, including the authority to conduct surprise checks, ensuring the rights of arrestees are protected in letter and spirit.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Arrestees - Guidelines to prevent custodial violence - Monitoring and implementation - Statutory safeguards to be implemented in letter and spirit to minimize or eliminate custodial violence. (Para 1, 2)
(B) Human Rights Commissions - Role in overseeing judicial requirements - The task of monitoring compliance with guidelines protecting arrestees, including the authority to conduct surprise checks, can be assigned to State Human Rights Commissions or, in their absence, committees constituted by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The court had previously established eleven requirements to protect the interests of arrestees and reduce custodial violence. Despite reports from various authorities claiming implementation, reports in the press and other sources indicated that custodial violence persisted and the rights of arrestees were not being respected.
Findings of Court:
To ensure proper compliance and monitoring of the guidelines, the court directed the constitution of sub-committees within State Human Rights Commissions to oversee implementation. In jurisdictions where such commissions are not operational, the Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to constitute a similar committee. These committees are empowered to conduct surprise checks to verify actual implementation.
Issues: Whether a specialized monitoring mechanism is necessary to ensure that the guidelines preventing custodial violence are implemented in letter and spirit.
Ratio Decidendi: To effectively eliminate custodial violence and protect the rights of arrestees, oversight must be delegated to human rights bodies or court-appointed committees with the power to perform surprise checks and report back to the court.
Result: Criminal miscellaneous petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- human rights law
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- personal liberty (Para 1)
-
fundamental rights
Table of Contents
2. Reports indicate custodial violence continues despite court requirements for arrestees' protection. (Para 1 )
3. State reports show requirements are being implemented, but custodial violence reportedly persists despite safeguards. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. Court can assign monitoring of custodial violence safeguards to State Human Rights Commissions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
5. Requested State Human Rights Commissions to monitor compliance with custodial violence requirements and report within three months. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. Can the court assign monitoring of custodial violence safeguards to State Human Rights Commissions?
Yes, the court can assign monitoring of compliance with custodial violence requirements to State Human Rights Commissions with power to conduct surprise checks. (Para 2 )
7. What happens in states without a Human Rights Commission for monitoring compliance?
In states without a Human Rights Commission, the Chief Justice of the High Court must constitute a committee for the same monitoring purpose. (Para 2 )
8. What reporting requirement was imposed on the monitoring committees?
The monitoring committees must send a report of action taken to the court within three months. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Crl. MP No. 12704 of 2001
1. According to the affidavits filed by most of the States and Union a Territories, the 11 "requirements" laid down by this Court in D.K. Basu Case on 18-12-1996 in the interest of the arrestees and to minimise, if not altogether eliminate, custodial violence, are being implemented. There are, however, some reports which have appeared in the press or otherwise brought to our notice that despite "those requirements", the rights of the arrestees, which are sought to be protected by those requirements are not being respected and custodial violence continues.
2. With a view to ensure proper compliance, we consider it now proper that for further monitoring of the case, to see that the 11 "requirements", as spelt out in D.K. Basu easel, besides other statutory safeguards, are implemented in letter and in spirit, that the task be assigned to the Human Rights Commission constituted in various States/Union Territories. We, accordingly, request the Chairmen of the State Human Rights Commission of different States/Union Territories to constitute a sub-committee in the Human Rights Commission with a view to oversee whether those requirements are being carried out or not and to take all such further necessary steps as are required to ensure that those requirements are carried out. It shall be open to the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the State Human Rights Commission, to make surprise checks with a view to see actual implementation of those requirements. In the States or Union Territories, where Human Rights Commissions have not been set up, we request the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, to constitute a committee, as found appropriate for the same purpose and directions which we have given in regard to the State Human Rights Commission would equally apply to those Committees also.
3. A report of action taken shall be sent to this Court by the Committee of the State Human Rights Commission or the Committee constituted by the Honble Chief Justice of the High Courts within three months.
4. List the matter for further directions after three months in consultation with the learned amicus.
5. The criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
