Custodial Rights, Protection Against Abuse, And Oversight
I. CUSTODIAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL PROTECTIONS
Custodial rights protect persons arrested or detained by the state, ensuring their safety, dignity, and legal rights. Abuse in custody (physical, mental, or sexual) is prohibited.
Legal Framework:
Indian Constitution
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty
Article 22: Protection against arbitrary arrest and preventive detention
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Section 50: Arrest without warrant procedure
Section 57: Limitation on detention without judicial authority
Section 161: Recording statements of the accused
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
Guidelines by Supreme Court
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): Rules for arrest, custody, and police conduct
II. KEY PRINCIPLES
Right to Inform and Legal Representation
Person under arrest must be informed of grounds and allowed to meet a lawyer.
Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment
Custodial violence is unconstitutional.
Medical Examination
Mandatory to check for injuries upon arrest and detention.
Judicial Oversight
Courts can examine allegations of custodial abuse and award compensation.
III. LANDMARK CASES
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts: Guidelines were needed to prevent custodial deaths and torture.
Held: Supreme Court laid down 11 mandatory guidelines for police during arrests and detention.
Significance: Foundation for custodial protection and oversight in India.
2. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, Bihar (1979)
Facts: Hundreds of undertrial prisoners in Bihar were languishing in jail without trial.
Held: Supreme Court ordered their release, citing violation of Article 21.
Significance: Strengthened right to speedy trial and protection of undertrials.
3. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996)
Facts: Death in custody raised questions about compensation.
Held: Court held the state liable and recommended compensation for custodial deaths.
Significance: Established state responsibility for custodial abuse.
4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Facts: Allegations of police torture leading to serious injury.
Held: Court emphasized strict adherence to D.K. Basu guidelines and recommended disciplinary action.
Significance: Reinforced police accountability in custodial abuse.
5. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Facts: Police reforms case addressing arbitrary detention and custodial torture.
Held: Court directed structural reforms in police forces to prevent abuse.
Significance: Introduced mechanisms for oversight and accountability.
6. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986)
Facts: Women prisoners subjected to custodial abuse and inadequate care.
Held: Supreme Court directed gender-sensitive custodial protections and medical facilities.
Significance: Protection of female prisoners and detainees against abuse.
7. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Facts: Right to legal counsel during custodial interrogation was challenged.
Held: Right to counsel is essential during police custody under Article 21.
Significance: Legal representation is a fundamental safeguard against abuse.
IV. PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
| Principle | Case Reference |
|---|---|
| Mandatory police guidelines during arrest | D.K. Basu v. West Bengal |
| Right to speedy trial and release of undertrials | Hussainara Khatoon |
| State accountability for custodial deaths | State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh |
| Police accountability and disciplinary action | PUCL v. Maharashtra |
| Structural police reforms to prevent abuse | Prakash Singh v. Union of India |
| Gender-sensitive custodial protections | Sheela Barse v. Union of India |
| Right to legal counsel during custody | Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani |
V. CONCLUSION
Custodial rights are protected under Constitution, CrPC, and human rights law.
Abuse in custody is unconstitutional and actionable.
Judicial oversight, compensation, and reforms are essential for enforcement.
D.K. Basu guidelines remain the key benchmark for safe and lawful custody.
RELATED Blog
0 comments