Criminal Procedure Code

State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India

AIR 2004 SC 7

Facts

Proceedings arose from allegations of custodial assault and death involving police officers.
The Bombay High Court issued several general directions governing:
medical examination of arrested persons;
arrest and detention of women;
and payment and possible recovery of compensation.
The State accepted the need for custodial safeguards but challenged parts of the directions as:
duplicative of D.K. Basu;
impractical;
or passed without hearing the officers personally affected.
The Supreme Court examined the legality and workable scope of those directions. (CaseMine)

Whether the High Court’s medical-examination directions should be replaced by the D.K. Basu standards.
Whether there could be an absolute prohibition on arresting a woman at night or without a female police officer.
Whether compensation could immediately be recovered from individual officers without an inquiry.

The arresting authority must record visible injuries and arrange periodic medical examinations in accordance with D.K. Basu.
Every reasonable effort must be made to secure the presence of a female police officer when arresting a woman.
At the time of this judgment, the Supreme Court held that an absolute bar could be impractical in urgent circumstances.
It permitted exceptional arrest without a female officer where:
delay would seriously impede investigation; and
reasons were recorded before or immediately after arrest.
State liability to compensate a victim of police excess may arise under Nilabati Behera.
Recovery from an individual officer requires:
identification of personal responsibility;
a fair inquiry;
and an opportunity of hearing.
Later statutory development: CrPC Section 46(4), inserted subsequently, imposed stricter protection: a woman ordinarily cannot be arrested after sunset and before sunrise; in exceptional circumstances, a woman police officer must submit a written report and obtain prior permission from the Judicial Magistrate First Class. BNSS Section 43(5) substantially continues this rule. ()

The High Court’s medical directions substantially repeated requirements already laid down nationally in D.K. Basu.
The Supreme Court preferred a uniform national standard instead of different formulations from different High Courts.
It therefore substituted the relevant directions with the established requirements concerning:
injury inspection memos;
signatures;
and medical examination every forty-eight hours.
Regarding arrest of women, the Court agreed with the protective purpose.
However, under the legal position existing at that time, it considered an absolute ban potentially dangerous where:
a woman accused might abscond;
evidence might be destroyed;
or an urgent serious offence required immediate action.
Recorded reasons were intended to prevent casual reliance on the exception.
The later legislative amendment made the safeguard stronger by requiring prior Magistrate permission for night arrest.
On compensation, the State could be required to pay for the constitutional wrong.
But recovery from particular officers could not be ordered merely because they belonged to the police force.
Individual liability depended on whether the officer:
participated in the excess;
acted outside duty;
or could personally be blamed after a fair inquiry.

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s directions.
It aligned medical safeguards with D.K. Basu, qualified the then-existing rule concerning arrest of women and left recovery from officers to a proper inquiry.
The night-arrest portion must now be read subject to the stricter statutory rule in CrPC Section 46(4) and BNSS Section 43(5). (CaseMine)