Case Title: D.K Basu v. State Of W.B.
The Court condemned the increased incidents of abuse and deaths in police custody. Although violations of one or more human rights have been the subject of various Conventions and Declarations, and vows have been made to eradicate the evil of custodial torture, terrible cases of such abuse persist unabated. The court defined "custodial torture" as a gross violation of human dignity and degradation that undermines the victim's self-esteem and does not spare his individuality. Custodial torture, the Court concluded, is a premeditated assault on human dignity, and whenever human dignity is harmed, civilization suffers.
Based on its judgements in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, State of M.P v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and the 113th Report of the Law Commission of India proposing insertion of Section 114-B in the Evidence Act, this Court ruled that while an individual's freedom must surrender to the security of the state, the right to interrogate the detenus, culprits or arrestees in the interest of the nation must take precedence over an individual's right to personal liberty.
Having stated that, the Court remarked that the State's action must be just and fair. Torture in any form to obtain information is neither lawful, reasonable, or fair, and is thus illegal and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. A crime suspect may be interrogated and subjected to sustained and scientific interrogation as per the provisions of law, but no such suspect may be tortured, subjected to third-degree methods, or eliminated to elicit information, extract a confession, or gain knowledge about his accomplices, weapons, and so on. His constitutional right cannot be infringed upon except in the manner permitted by law, albeit the nature of the situation would necessitate a qualitative difference in the method of interrogation of such a person versus a regular criminal. This Court declared that state terrorism is not a viable counter-terrorism strategy. It may simply serve to legitimise terrorism, which is harmful to the state, the community, and, most importantly, the rule of law.
The court further stated that custodial death is one of the most heinous crimes in a civilised society regulated by the rule of law. The rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution must be guarded zealously and rigorously. We cannot wish the problem away. Torture or cruel, inhuman, or humiliating treatment, whether during an investigation, interrogation, or otherwise, would be prohibited under Article 21 of the Constitution. If government officials breach the law, it is bound to breed contempt for the law and foster lawlessness, and every man will have the urge to become a law unto himself, leading to anarchy. No civilised country can allow this to happen. Is a citizen's fundamental right to life violated the moment he is arrested by a police officer? Can a citizen's right to life be suspended upon his arrest? These questions strike at the heart of human rights law. The answer has to be a resounding "No." The priceless right granted by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detainees, and other prisoners in custody except per the procedure established by law and subject to such reasonable restrictions as are permissible by law.
The Court also considered whether compensation may be granted and determined that pecuniary compensation was permissible as redress in appropriate instances upon proof of infringement of a citizen's fundamental rights by public officials and that the State was vicariously accountable for their actions. The Court further ruled that compensation was due under the principle of strict liability, without the protection of sovereign immunity, and that the citizen must get compensation from the State because he or she had a right to be indemnified by the government.