Case Summary: D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1996)
- Citation: (1997) 1 SCC 416 | AIR 1997 SC 610
- Judges: Kuldip Singh, A.S. Anand
- Date of Decision: 18 December 1996
- Court: Supreme Court of India (Division Bench)
- Case No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 539 of 1986
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=286095
Law Points Raised
1. Whether custodial violence and deaths in police lock-ups violate Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution?
2. Whether the Court can formulate guidelines to prevent custodial torture and ensure accountability?
3. Whether compensation should be awarded for infringement of Fundamental Rights caused by custodial torture or death?
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that custodial torture and deaths violate fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22. Such incidents strike at the heart of the rule of law. The Court acknowledged the absence of statutory safeguards being effectively implemented, and exercised its constitutional mandate to formulate enforceable guidelines for arrest and detention procedures. It recognized compensation as a legitimate remedy for violation of rights under Article 21.
Final Ruling
1. The Court laid down 11 mandatory guidelines to be followed during arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
2. It held that monetary compensation must be awarded for established violations of fundamental rights caused by custodial violence.
3. Directed all State Governments and police departments to strictly comply with the guidelines until suitable legislation is enacted.
4. Reaffirmed the right to life and dignity as the core of Article 21.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers
🔹 Para 1–4: Background and origin of PIL
🔹 Para 9–13: Observations on torture and human dignity
🔹 Para 17–18: Constitutional and statutory safeguards
🔹 Para 19: National Police Commission report
🔹 Final Guidelines: Last section of the judgment
Summary
This landmark judgment brought forth a constitutional framework to curb the menace of custodial violence in India. By treating a PIL based on newspaper reports, the Court exercised its proactive jurisdiction to protect the right to life and liberty under Article 21. It established detailed arrest and detention protocols, emphasized accountability of police officers, and endorsed compensation as a constitutional remedy. The judgment stands as a milestone in the development of 'custody jurisprudence' and human rights enforcement in India.