Criminal Procedure Code

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

(1997) 1 SCC 416: AIR 1997 SC 610

Facts

D.K. Basu, associated with a legal-aid organisation, wrote to the Chief Justice of India after newspaper reports described deaths and torture in police custody.
The letter was treated as a writ petition.
Another custodial-death matter from Uttar Pradesh was considered with it.
The Court recognised that custodial torture ordinarily occurs away from public scrutiny and that victims frequently lack documentary evidence.
Existing legal provisions were found insufficiently implemented to prevent secret or unrecorded detention.

What procedural safeguards must police follow during arrest and detention?
Whether violation of those safeguards attracts departmental, contempt and compensation consequences.
How constitutional courts should respond to custodial violence.

The Supreme Court prescribed binding arrest requirements, including:
Arresting officers must bear clear identification and name tags.
A memorandum of arrest must be prepared at the time of arrest.
The memo must:
state the date and time;
be attested by a witness;
and be countersigned by the arrested person.
A friend, relative or other interested person must be informed promptly.
The arrested person must be told of this right.
The place of detention must be notified where the relative lives outside the district.
Relevant entries must be made in the police diary.
Injuries must be recorded in an inspection memo signed by the arrested person and officer.
The arrested person must undergo medical examination every forty-eight hours by an approved doctor.
Copies of arrest documents must be sent to the Magistrate.
The arrested person may meet a lawyer during interrogation, though not necessarily throughout.
Police control rooms must display information about the arrest.
Non-compliance may lead to:
departmental action;
contempt proceedings;
criminal liability;
and constitutional compensation.
Many directions were later incorporated into CrPC Sections 41-B, 41-C and 41-D. Their BNSS equivalents are Sections 36, 37 and 38. ()

Ordinary criminal-law rules prohibiting assault were insufficient because custodial torture is difficult to prove after it occurs.
The Court therefore focused on prevention through documentation and transparency.
An arrest memo fixes the precise time at which State responsibility begins.
Informing a relative prevents the arrested person from disappearing into undisclosed custody.
Medical examination:
records pre-existing injuries;
identifies new injuries;
deters torture;
and supplies neutral evidence.
Judicial receipt of documents ensures that the Magistrate can examine whether detention is lawful.
Identification of officers prevents anonymity from shielding individual misconduct.
The Court rejected the argument that strict safeguards would make effective policing impossible.
Lawful interrogation remains permissible.
What is prohibited is:
torture;
secret detention;
involuntary confession;
and treatment inconsistent with human dignity.
The State is responsible because custody places the individual under complete official control.
Public-law compensation does not replace:
criminal prosecution;
civil damages;
or departmental action.
It is a constitutional remedy for established violation of Article 21.

The Supreme Court issued nationwide binding requirements governing arrest and detention.
It held that custodial torture violates Articles 21 and 22 and that courts may award compensation for established violations.
The case created the foundation of modern arrest documentation and custodial accountability in India.