T.S.THAKUR, R.BANUMATHI
Dilip K. Basu – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
Ratio decidendi:
Mandatory constitution of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs): The word "may" in Section 21(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, must be construed as "shall" or mandatory, as it confers a power coupled with a duty, given the Act's purpose of protecting human rights, international obligations, access to justice under Article 21, and the scheme vesting SHRCs with powers akin to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for inquiries, awareness, and promotion of human rights. States cannot evade this obligation due to discretion, financial constraints, or small size; they must constitute SHRCs (using Section 21(6) for joint setups if needed), especially in high-violation areas. (!) (!) [1000570890006][1000570890007][1000570890008][1000570890009][1000570890010][1000570890011][1000570890012][1000570890013][1000570890014][1000570890015][1000570890016] (!)
Filling vacancies in SHRCs: Vacancies in posts of Chairperson or Members must be filled expeditiously (within 3 months of occurrence or from the order date for existing ones) to keep SHRCs functional, as dysfunctional commissions defeat the Act's object; proactive processes should start in advance where possible.[1000570890021][1000570890022] (!) (!)
Reaffirmation of arrest/detention guidelines: The 11 requirements issued in the 1997 judgment (e.g., identification tags, arrest memo with witness, informing friend/relative, medical exams, diary entries, documents to magistrate, lawyer meetings, control room notices) remain binding as preventive measures against custodial abuse until legislated. (!) (!) [1000570890032] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Prosecutions in custodial deaths/injuries: Where inquiry establishes culpability of custody officials for death, injury, or torture, appropriate criminal proceedings (e.g., under IPC Sections 302/304) must be initiated without fail.[1000570890029] (!)
Other supportive measures: States should notify Human Rights Courts per Section 30; install CCTV in prisons (within 1-2 years) and consider phased installation in police stations; appoint non-official visitors for surprise inspections; deploy women constables where women were detained recently.[1000570890023][1000570890024][1000570890026][1000570890027][1000570890028] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Judgment :
T.S. Thakur, J.
In D.K. Basu etc. v. State of West Bengal etc., (1997) 1 SCC 416 [D.K. Basu (1)] this Court lamented the growing incidence of torture and deaths in police custody. This Court noted that although violation of one or the other of the human rights has been the subject-matter of several Conventions and Declarations and although commitments have been made to eliminate the scourge of custodial torture yet gruesome incidents of such torture continue unabated. The court described 'custodial torture' as a naked violation of human dignity and degradation that destroys self esteem of the victim and does not even spare his personality. Custodial torture observed the Court is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backwards. The Court relied upon the Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure and the Third Report of the National Police Commission in India to hold that despite recommendations for banishing torture from investigative system, growing incidence of torture and deaths in police custody come back to haunt. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Or
In D.K. Basu etc. v. State of West Bengal etc.
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Smt Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors.
State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors.
Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B. and Ors.
Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B. and Ors.
Dilip Kumar Basu v. State of W.B. and Ors.
Dilip K. Basu and Ors. v. State of W.B. and Ors.
Dilip K. Basu and Ors. v. State of W.B. and Ors.
Dilip K. Basu and Ors. v. State of W.B. and Ors.
Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B. and Ors.
Sardar Govind Rao and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Official Liquidator v. Dharti Dhan Pvt. Ltd.
N. D. Jayal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Manushkhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.