9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Constitutional protection to women from interrogation at police station houses. 2. Interpretation of Clause (2) of Article 20, Clause (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Implications of the proviso to Clause (1) of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 28 of 1958. 4. Validity and implications of Acts 19 of 1955 and 28 of 1958 in relation to arrest and interrogation procedures. 5. Rights of women in criminal law, especially in terms of interrogation procedures and police powers. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the circumstances where a writ petition was filed to prevent the Army from taking females to an Army camp for interrogation. The court heard arguments from various counsels representing different parties involved, including the State of Assam, Central Government, and the petitioners. The issues raised were of significant importance concerning the constitutional protection afforded to women during interrogation by police and army officials. 2. The key legal provisions discussed in the judgment included Clause (2) of Article 20, Clause (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, and Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The focus was on interpreting the proviso to Clause (1) of Section 160, which states that no woman shall be required to attend any place other than her residence. The debate centered on whether this provision applied in the context of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 28 of 1958. 3. The judgment delved into the implications of Acts 19 of 1955 and 28 of 1958 concerning arrest and interrogation procedures. The validity and application of these Acts were challenged in a group of cases before the court, raising questions about the rights of individuals, particularly women, in the criminal justice system. 4. The court referenced previous legal cases, such as Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani, to highlight the rights of women in criminal law and interrogation processes. The judgment emphasized that women, whether as accused or witnesses, should not be summoned to a police station for interrogation, as clarified in established legal principles. 5. The final decision of the court emphasized that women should not be taken to Army camps for interrogation under the provisions of Act 28 of 1958. It clarified the procedures to be followed by Army officials and police authorities when dealing with female individuals in custody. The judgment aimed to provide guidance and clarity on the rights and treatment of women in the criminal justice system, particularly in the context of interrogation procedures.
|
