Punjab And Haryana HC Lawyers To Abstain From Work To Protest ‘Custodial Torture Of Lawyer
Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers’ Protest: Abstention from Work Against Custodial Torture of a Lawyer
Background
Lawyers practicing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court decided to abstain from court work as a form of protest against the reported custodial torture of one of their colleagues. Such a step is significant, reflecting serious concerns about the protection of lawyers’ rights, human rights, and the rule of law.
Context of Lawyers’ Protests
Lawyers, as officers of the court, play a vital role in the justice delivery system. When they face threats, harassment, or custodial violence, it undermines the independence of the legal profession and shakes public confidence in the legal system.
Abstention or boycott of courts by lawyers is a powerful, though extreme, form of protest that has been used in India to demand accountability or justice in cases involving attacks on members of the legal fraternity.
Such protests are also aimed at drawing attention to violations of constitutional and legal rights.
Custodial Torture of Lawyers: Legal Framework
Custodial torture refers to the physical or mental abuse inflicted on a person in police custody, which is illegal under Indian law and violates fundamental rights.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes protection against torture and inhumane treatment.
The Supreme Court of India has laid down strict guidelines against custodial violence and mandated accountability of police officers.
The Police Act, 1861 and CrPC provide safeguards and procedures against illegal detention and torture.
Important Case Laws on Custodial Torture and Protection of Lawyers
1. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610
Landmark judgment where the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial torture.
These include mandatory police station diaries, medical examination of the accused at the time of arrest, and identity of arresting officers.
The Court emphasized that custodial violence is a grave violation of human rights and the dignity of the individual.
2. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025
Held that the right to be protected from self-incrimination and to be treated humanely during police custody is part of the right to life and liberty.
Reinforced the illegality of custodial torture.
3. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, (1994) 4 SCC 260
The Supreme Court set out the principles regarding arrest and detention, emphasizing that arbitrary arrest or detention is illegal.
It mandated safeguards including informing relatives and providing reasons for arrest.
4. Bhagalpur Blindness Case (Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369)
Highlighted the consequences of custodial violence and police excesses.
The Court stressed on prompt judicial intervention and proper treatment of detainees.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1995 SC 264
The Court held that the custodial death or torture attracts the doctrine of strict liability, and police officers are liable unless they prove otherwise.
Legal Protection for Lawyers
The Advocates Act, 1961, Section 35, empowers State Bar Councils to protect the interests of lawyers.
Assault, harassment, or torture of lawyers, especially in custody, is a serious offense attracting criminal prosecution.
Courts have recognized that custodial torture of lawyers is an affront to the independence of the legal profession and the administration of justice.
Impact of Lawyers’ Abstention from Work
Temporarily halting court proceedings sends a strong message demanding investigation and accountability.
It emphasizes the need for police reforms and protection of constitutional rights.
Raises public and governmental awareness about the seriousness of custodial violence.
Courts have sometimes taken suo motu cognizance following such protests.
Summary
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Reason for Protest | Custodial torture of a lawyer in police custody |
| Form of Protest | Abstention from work/boycott of courts |
| Constitutional Basis | Right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), protection against torture |
| Legal Safeguards | DK Basu guidelines, Advocates Act, Police Act, CrPC |
| Important Case Laws | DK Basu, Joginder Kumar, Nandini Satpathy, Bhagalpur Blindness case, Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain |
| Purpose of Protest | Demand investigation, accountability, and police reforms |
| Impact | Raises awareness, judicial scrutiny, protection of lawyers and human rights |
RELATED Blog
0 comments