1. Monitoring of compliance with directions issued in the DK Basu case regarding custodial rights and police procedures across various states. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1398
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand, CJI., M. Srinivasan, M.B. Shah, JJ.
Shri Dilip K. Basu - Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondents
Crl. M.P. No. 4201 of 1997 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 539/86 and 592/87.
Decided On : 11-12-1998
The Court emphasized the necessity of comprehensive compliance reports from State governments regarding judicial guidelines on custodial rights, ruling that failure to provide such information may lead to adverse presumptions against the State.
Headnote:(A) Compliance with Judicial Directions - Custodial Rights - Implementation of guidelines regarding arrest and detention - Failure of State governments to provide comprehensive compliance reports - Court's power to grant final opportunities and draw adverse presumptions in case of continued non-compliance. (Paras 1, 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The Court was monitoring the implementation of directions issued in a landmark judgment concerning the rights of persons arrested. Various State governments were required to file affidavits detailing the extent of compliance with these directions. Some States requested more time, while others filed affidavits that the Court found insufficient or lacking district-wise details.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that certain State governments had failed to provide definite reports or comprehensive district-wise information regarding the implementation of the mandated guidelines.
Issues: Whether the compliance affidavits filed by the State governments were sufficient to demonstrate adherence to the court-mandated guidelines on custodial rights.
Ratio Decidendi: When State governments fail to provide adequate information or comprehensive reports on the implementation of judicial directions, the Court may grant a final opportunity for compliance, failing which an adverse presumption may be drawn against the State. (Paras 1, 3)
Result: Final opportunities granted to the concerned States to furnish requisite information on affidavit within the stipulated time.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Requests by states for additional time to furnish requisite information and compliance affidavits regarding the implementation of judicial directions. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. Affidavits filed by states were found insufficient for failing to provide definite reports or district-wise details regarding compliance with established judicial directions. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Failure of the state to furnish required compliance information on an affidavit may lead to an adverse presumption being drawn against the state. (Para 1 , 3 )
5. Final extensions granted to states for filing compliance affidavits; costs ordered to be paid by one state; other states scheduled for future consideration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. What is the consequence of a state's failure to furnish required compliance information to the court?
The court may draw a necessary adverse presumption against the state if the required information is not furnished within the granted timeframe. (Para 1 , 3 )
7. What are the requirements for a compliance affidavit to be considered satisfactory by the court?
A compliance affidavit must provide a definite report and disclose the extent and manner of compliance with judicial directions across each district of the state. (Para 3 , 4 )
JUDGMENT :
1. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Bihar submits that he has not been able to collect all the information and if one more opportunity is granted to him he shall furnish the requisite information. Number of opportunities have already been given to the State of Bihar, however, at the request of Mr. B.B. Singh, a final and last opportunity is granted to him to do the needful within four weeks and furnish the information on an affidavit. In case the needful is not done, the necessary presumption shall have to be drawn against the State.
State of Assam
2. On behalf of State of Assam, we are informed that a bank draft for the amount of costs imposed on the last date has been prepared. Let the same be given to Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, learned counsel assisting Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Amicus-Curiae.
State of Kerala
3. We have considered the compliance affidavit filed by the State of Kerala. We find that there is no definite report with regard to proper compliance with many of the directions given in DK Basu's case. Learned counsel for the State of Kerala has been apprised of the shortcomings and he submits that he may be granted some time to file an affidavit giving complete picture with regard to the status of compliance with various directions given in D.K. Basu's case. Six weeks time, as prayed for is granted. This shall be treated as the final opportunity. In case the needful is not done, necessary presumption shall have to be drawn against the State.
State of Sikkim
4. Insofar as the State of Sikkim is concerned, we have been taken through the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary. We are not satisfied with the same. The affidavit does not disclose about the extent and manner of compliance with the directions given in D.K. Basu's case in each of the Districts of the State of Sikkim. It is necessary that information, complete in all respects, as directed by us in our earlier order be furnished by the Chief Secretary, on the basis of the reports received by him from the Districts. Let the needful be done within four weeks.
5. On the next date, the cases relating to State of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Gujarat and Karnataka shall be taken up for consideration.
