1996 (12) TMI 350 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India? Held that - It is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is nor available and the citizen must revive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Custodial violence and deaths in police custody.
2. Examination of police powers and accountability.
3. Formulation of guidelines to prevent custodial violence.
4. Awarding compensation for violation of Fundamental Rights.
5. Legal and constitutional safeguards against custodial violence.
6. Recommendations for legislative amendments.
7. Judicial precedents and international perspectives on custodial violence.
8. Procedural requirements for arrest and detention.
9. Punitive measures and compensation for custodial violence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Custodial Violence and Deaths in Police Custody:
The judgment addresses the issue of frequent custodial violence and deaths in police custody, highlighting the need to develop "custody jurisprudence" and formulate modalities for awarding compensation to victims and their families. The court emphasizes that custodial violence undermines the Rule of Law and is a grave violation of human dignity.

2. Examination of Police Powers and Accountability:
The court examines the powers of arrest, detention, and interrogation, emphasizing that these powers must be exercised within the limits of the law. The judgment refers to the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure in England, which recommended restrictions on the power of arrest based on the 'necessity principle'. The court stresses that police powers must be transparent and accountable to prevent abuse.

3. Formulation of Guidelines to Prevent Custodial Violence:
The court acknowledges the need for guidelines to minimize custodial violence. It refers to the recommendations of the National Police Commission and the Law Commission of India, which suggested incorporating Section 114-B in the Indian Evidence Act to presume that injuries caused during police custody were inflicted by the police. The court issues specific procedural requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention to ensure transparency and accountability.

4. Awarding Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The judgment discusses the importance of awarding compensation for established infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The court highlights that compensation serves as a remedy under public law jurisdiction for the wrong done due to the breach of public duty by the State. The court refers to several judicial precedents, including Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, where compensation was awarded for custodial deaths.

5. Legal and Constitutional Safeguards Against Custodial Violence:
The court emphasizes the constitutional safeguards provided under Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution, which protect individuals against torture and unjustified arrest and detention. It also refers to statutory provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which aim to protect the personal liberty and dignity of arrested persons. The court stresses that these safeguards must be strictly followed to prevent custodial violence.

6. Recommendations for Legislative Amendments:
The court highlights the need for legislative amendments to address custodial violence effectively. It refers to the Law Commission's recommendation to amend the Indian Evidence Act to include Section 114-B, which presumes that injuries caused during police custody were inflicted by the police. The court invites Parliament's attention to the urgency of such amendments.

7. Judicial Precedents and International Perspectives on Custodial Violence:
The judgment refers to various judicial precedents and international conventions that condemn torture and custodial violence. It cites cases like Joginder Kumar vs. State and Neelabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, which emphasized the protection of Fundamental Rights and awarded compensation for custodial deaths. The court also refers to international perspectives, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment.

8. Procedural Requirements for Arrest and Detention:
The court issues specific procedural requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention to ensure transparency and accountability. These include preparing a memo of arrest, informing a friend or relative of the arrestee, conducting medical examinations, and maintaining proper records of the arrest and detention. The court emphasizes that failure to comply with these requirements would render the concerned official liable for departmental action and contempt of court.

9. Punitive Measures and Compensation for Custodial Violence:
The court discusses the punitive measures available under the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 220, 330, and 331, which provide for punishment for custodial violence and torture. The court emphasizes that prosecution of the offender is an obligation of the State, but the victim also needs to be compensated monetarily. The court asserts that compensation must be awarded under public law jurisdiction for the violation of Fundamental Rights, and this remedy is in addition to the traditional remedies available under civil law.

Conclusion:
The judgment underscores the need for stringent measures to prevent custodial violence and ensure accountability of law enforcement agencies. It emphasizes the importance of awarding compensation for the violation of Fundamental Rights and calls for legislative amendments to address custodial violence effectively. The court issues specific procedural requirements to ensure transparency and accountability in cases of arrest and detention, aiming to curb custodial violence and uphold the Rule of Law.