A public interest petition drew the Supreme Court's attention to rising deaths and torture in police custody and the absence of transparent arrest procedure.

Constitution of India -- Arts. 21 & 22(1) -- custodial violence -- safeguards on arrest and detention -- Custodial torture and deaths -- constitutional basis for safeguards -- Held: Custodial torture and violence in police lock-ups violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and the arrestee's right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and to consult a lawyer under Article 22(1). The State's power to arrest and detain must be balanced against the individual's right to personal liberty; "third degree" methods have no place in a civilised legal system. Requirements on arrest and detention -- eleven guidelines -- Held further: In addition to existing constitutional and statutory safeguards, the Court laid down requirements to be followed in every case of arrest and detention, including: police personnel effecting arrest to bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags; a memo of arrest to be prepared at the time of arrest, attested by at least one witness and countersigned by the arrestee, stating the time and date of arrest; the arrestee's right to have a friend, relative or well-wisher informed of the arrest and place of detention as soon as practicable; an entry of the arrest to be made in a diary at the place of detention; the arrestee to be examined medically at the time of arrest and thereafter every 48 hours; copies of all documents including the arrest memo to be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate; permission to meet a lawyer during, though not throughout, interrogation; and the District/State headquarters Police Control Room to be informed of the arrest within 12 hours. Enforceability and consequences of non-compliance -- Held further: These requirements flow directly from Articles 21 and 22(1) and are declared to be enforceable in all cases of arrest or detention until legal provisions are made in that behalf; failure to comply renders the concerned official liable for departmental action and also renders him liable to be punished for contempt of court, in addition to any other legal proceedings. Several of these requirements were subsequently given statutory form via ss. 41B, 41C, 41D and 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (in force 2010).

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India