LLM Notes: Judgment of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal in 10 Bullet Points

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal(1997)

 1. Case Background: The case originated from a letter written by D.K. Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, to the Chief Justice of India on August 26, 1986. The letter highlighted incidents of custodial deaths and torture, which the Supreme Court treated as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

1. Key Constitutional Provisions: The case revolved around fundamental rights under Articles 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and 22(1) (Rights of Arrested Persons), emphasizing that custodial violence violates these rights.

2. Guidelines Issued by the Court: The Supreme Court laid down 11 guidelines to prevent custodial violence, including mandatory recording of arrests, timely medical examinations, and informing detainees' family members about the arrest.

3. Accountability of Police: The judgment established that police officers would be held personally liable for violations of these guidelines, ensuring greater accountability in law enforcement.

4. State’s Vicarious Liability: The Court ruled that the State could not claim sovereign immunity for acts of custodial violence by its officers and would be liable to compensate victims or their families.

5. Right to Compensation: The judgment recognized compensation as a remedy for the violation of fundamental rights, setting a precedent for awarding damages in cases of custodial abuse.

6. Prohibition of Torture: The Court emphasized that interrogation must adhere to humane and scientific methods, explicitly prohibiting third-degree methods or torture.

7. Impact on Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): The guidelines were later incorporated into the CrPC through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, which became effective in 2010.

8. Judicial Activism: This case showcased the proactive role of the judiciary in addressing systemic issues like custodial violence and protecting human rights.

9. Landmark Legacy: The judgment has been widely cited in subsequent cases involving custodial violence and remains a cornerstone in safeguarding detainees' rights in India. However, challenges persist in fully implementing the guidelines across all states.

Print Page