SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 1336

A. S. ANAND, N. S. HEGDE, ARIJIT PASAYAT
DILIP K. BASU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF W. B. – Respondent


ORDER

Crl. MP No. 12704 of 2001

According to the affidavits filed by most of the States and Union Territories, the 11 requirements laid down by this Court on 18-12-1996 in the interest of the arrestees and to minimize, 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.

With a view to ensure proper compliance, we consider it now proper that for further monitoring of the case as spelt out in Dilip K. Basu case 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 requ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top