ORDER

1. In Dilip K. Basu case this Court gave certain basic as 11 requirements, in addition to the safeguards provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws, to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention, till legal provisions are made in that behalf, as a measure to prevent and in any case to reduce incidents of custodial violence. As many as 11 requirements were laid down in that order dated 18-12-1996.

2. Subsequently, on an application filed by the learned amicus, to assess whether those directions were being respected and complied with by various States and Union Territories, we issued notice to all the States and Union Territories calling upon them to file affidavits and state in a tabular form whether each of those 11 “requirements” was being complied with and if not, the reasons for non-compliance. Almost all the States and Union Territories have filed their affidavits. Charts have also been filed indicating which of the directions have been complied with and the deficiency in complying with other requirements.

3. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned amicus submits that since the affidavits from almost all the States and Union Territories have now been received, he would put in writing certain suggestions for further monitoring of the case by agencies other than by this Court to save the time of this Court. Let him file necessary suggestions within one week.

4. In the meanwhile, after considering the affidavits and reports filed on behalf of various States and Union Territories, it appears appropriate to us to direct all the States and Union Territories to issue instructions to the agencies concerned for completing the inquiry by Magistrates into causes of custodial death as envisaged by Section 176 Cr.P.C. as far as possible within a period of four months. In case, where the inquiry into the cause of death while in police custody, cannot be completed within the aforesaid period of four months, reasons shall be recorded by the officer and permission sought from the Sessions Judge of the district concerned for some more time to complete the inquiry.

5. The Sessions Judges shall, while granting extension keep in view the desirability of early completion of Section 176 Cr.P.C. inquiries. We are issuing this direction for expeditious completion of the inquiries under Section 176 Cr.P.C. so that the object given in the directions in D.K. Basu case is not frustrated.

6. Learned counsel for the States and the Union Territories undertake to communicate this direction to the respective State Governments/Union Territories for strict compliance. List on 19-10-2001 at 10.30 a.m. for further directions.