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

2003 Supreme(SC) 1336

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS)
A.S. Anand, CJI., N.S. HEGDE, ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.
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 : 19-10-2001

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21 and 22 - Arrest and detention and custodial violence- 11 requirements' laid down by Supreme Court in D.K. Basu case 1977) 1 SCC 416, in the interest of the arrestees and to minimise, if not altogether eliminate, custodial violence- Affidavits filed by most of the States and Union Territories, that they were being implemented- Some reports that despite 'those requirements', the rights of the arrestees, were not being respected and custodial violence continued- Therefore task assigned to the Human Rights Commission constituted in various States/Union Territories- The Chairmen of the State Human Rights Commission of different States/Union Territories to constitute a sub-committee 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. [Paras 2 and 3]

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 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.

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 Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Courts within three months. List the matter for further directions after three months in consultation with the learned amicus.

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 Back to top