A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS

OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

SUBMITTED BY: BRYAN RYNJAH (18) MONA GUPTA (38) MRINALIKA KANWAR (39)

FACULTY IN CHARGE: SWAPNA MAHINDRA NATH DEKA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY AND JUDICIAL ACADEMY, ASSAM GUWAHATI 9NOVEMBER, 2013

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Introduction Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees Right to liberty to all the citizens of India. This right being the basic constitutional right therefore should not be taken away arbitrarily by the State. As mentioned in Article 21 of the constitution that no one can be deprived of his personal liberty except by the procedures established by law. The above said line caste a huge burden on the state to determine how carefully and under which circumstances the right can be taken away. The code of criminal procedure lays down certain safeguards in order to protect the individual against the arbitrary arrest. There are certain important considerations in devising safeguards for arrested people such as nature of offence, junction at which safeguard is required, duration of arrest, background of an individual etc. The right of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution forms the very basis of our Criminal Justice system. In order to safeguard and to protect the inherent dignity of every individual the Constitution provides for certain rights even to the arrested persons and detainees. Every deprivation of liberty or physical restraint is not arrest. Only the deprivation of liberty by legal authority in a professionally competent and adapted manner amounts to arrest. Thus, arrest means apprehension of a person by legal authority resulting in deprivation of his liberty. There are various international mechanisms for instance The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966; The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any form of Detention or Imprisonment, 1988 which guarantees certain rights to prevent the individuals from arbitrary arrests or unlawful detentions. In the absence of such rights the State might act authoritatively which would result into unlawful deprivation of individuals liberty. It is clearly mentioned that Article 21 requires that no person shall be deprived of his rights except the procedure established by the law and that procedure established must be reasonable first and fair and shall not be arbitrary. Any inhuman act committed on the arrested persons by the Police Officers does attract the judiciary. The Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines and has been very vigilant against the violations of the human rights of the arrested persons. The need for prison reform has come into focus. It is a fathomless ocean, where some of the under trial prisoners have been in jail for the 7, 8 or 9 years and few of them have been there for more than 10 years not because they are guilty of any crime

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
but because their Right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution has been violated . If offence is taken as offence against the State then arrest should also be taken with same sense of responsibility. This means that the prisoners should not be treated as inhuman because if a person is arrested it should not be taken as individual arrest but the entire family suffers. The Police officers are afforded a wide range of Discretionary powers, covering things from deciding whether to or arrest someone. This is a serious responsibility that needs to be discharges with wisdom, maturity and neutrality. The Police use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to effect an arrest. Despite the fact, the Police needs broad powers of arrest which they can deploy without the prior authorisation from a judicial body. They need to be able to round up known offenders from time to time to see if they are responsible for crimes occurring in the locality. It may be that no crimes will be detected by these methods but this may help to prevent the planned crimes. Under this model, crime control considerations are regarded as relevant when applied in context-sensitive manner. This caution about the wide powers and the frequent use, of arrest, because every arrest which fails to prevent or solve a crime creates a two-fold loss of freedom: the arrestee loses some liberty and privacy, and the time, money and time wasted at the time of arrest (for eg Street Patrols). Further, Citizens must know or have a right to know whether arrest is lawful or not. Freedom is reduced both when people experience what they believe are arbitrary interventions in their lives and when they fear such interventions. Moreover, citizens have a right to know of what offence he was arrested or whether it is lawful or not. Even the Hand-cuffing or putting on bar-fetters on the prisoners in jail for several days on flimsy grounds like behaving insolently and in an uncivilised manner has been in violation of Article 21 under the Indian Constitution. However, the protection of Article 21 is not available only to a living person but also to his body after death. Consequently, as soon as he is declared by the medical officer his body should be released from the rope. Research Problem: Notwithstanding the fact that there are various provisions for safeguarding the rights of the individuals yet there are number of instances of custodial killings, police abuses including physical torture of the detainees all over the country. The State exercises unregulated

powers by passing of draconian laws i.e. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Act, 1987 (TADA), Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Further, in India where there is no scarcity of laws but the problem is the proper implementation of the laws which regulates the rights of the individuals. Therefore, there is an urge to see whether the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and other legal instruments are in mandate with the basic human rights mechanism in order to safeguard the integrity and dignity of the individual. Existing Legal Scenario: The effort of the Constitution makers to safeguard the right of the accused persons and those of detainees under Article 21 and 22 does not really facilitate in lowering down the instances of arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions. The Supreme Court has laid down various guidelines with the intention to protect the rights of the accused but all are in vain. In the Narco test analysis, where the court said that the involuntarily subjecting an accused, a suspect for a witness to such techniques violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution which prohibits self-incrination but it assumes no significance, as still the probe engineer have used Narco-test analysis techniques in a number of high profile cases such as Nithari case or Aarushi murder case. Furthermore, the complaints of abuse of discretionary powers to arrest still continue unabated. There is no mechanism which exercises effective checks on such discretionary powers of the police therefore, there results in instances of arbitrary arrest and unlawful detentions. However, there are instances where after the investigation is over, the accused are still kept into custody or even beaten up in the prisons. It is therefore, necessary to make appropriate provisions not only incorporating the said guidelines but also making such changes in law as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the said powers while at the same time ensuring the protects of the citizens. Objectives: To discuss elaborately the existing legal standards in India which safeguard the personal liberty of the individuals under the ambit of Indian Constitution. To discuss the rationale behind vesting the arrested individuals and the detainees with certain rights this will help to prevent the arbitrary arrest and unlawful detentions. To comprehensively discuss about the rights which are available to the arrested persons under Indian Constitution with the relevant guidelines laid down by the Court.

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
To discuss about the effectiveness of the rights guaranteed to the arrested person and the detainees in the present scenario and to discuss about the vast discretionary powers that are misused by the Police Officers and also changes that are required to reduce the instances of custodial killings. To draw special emphasis on the statutory provisions of arrest and how much these provisions are in accordance in Human rights and Fundamental rights under the Constitution.

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Chapter 2: Arrest and the Individual Liberty: Resolving the Conflict 2.1 An Arrest: Encapsulation of the Study Arrest is a matter of fact: it is not a legal concept. Arrest is situation whether a person has been arrested depends not on the legality of his arrest but on whether he has been deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases1. There need no explicit statement of arrest; arrest occurs if it is made clear that the arrestee would be prevented from leaving. The police can use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to affect an arrest2. While every arrest involves a deprivation of liberty to go where one pleases, it is not every such deprivation that amounts to an arrest. The police can interfere with peoples freedom of movement in various ways that do not amount to arrest. One example is that the courts have accepted that the police may (temporarily) detain or restrain a person or persons for their own safety or in order to prevent an imminent breach of the peace without this amounting to an arrest (or a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Art 5 of the European on Human rights (ECHR). Another example is that lawful searches of the person (during which the police may use such force as is reasonable to enable the search to take place, as by forcibly detaining them) are seen by the courts as falling short of an arrest. While the borderline between arrests and other forms of restraint is incapable of precise definition, the main form and (official) function of arrest is the physical apprehension of a person with a view to detaining him or her at a police station in order to facilitate the investigation of an offence and/or to secure his or her appearance in court. Arrest can also be protective (as where drunks, children or the mentally ill are detained for their own welfare) and preventive ( as where someone is form of arrest has grown in importance in recent years. The Arrest can be distressing without the police deliberately abusing their powers. Distress can give way to humiliation or even terror when the police do abuse their arrest powers. Abuse may take many forms,

1 2

Sanders Young Burton, Criminal Justice(Fourth Edition), Oxford University Press, New York, 2010, p 129. Sanders Young Burton, note 1, cited in, Criminal Law Act 1967, s 3; Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 117.

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
including arresting for an improper purpose or conducting the arrest in a deliberately disrespectful manner3. 2.2 Article 21-An Analyis Article 21, together with Article 14, constitute the most used provisions of the Indian Constitution. If the Ninth Schedule has been described as the laundry bag of suspect laws sought to be immunized from judicial review, Article 21 has become a huge departmental store to proudly showcase innumerable and diverse rights, irrespective of their operational realization. Thus, Article 21 has been invoked in various civil and political rights cases, including pretrial release on bond4, speedy trial for child offenders5, award of compensation in public law writ jurisdiction6, prohibition of cruel punishment7, custodial excesses and deaths8, delayed criminal trials9, the requirements of a fair trial10 and so forth. One part of this list has acted as a bulwark against arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty and prevented excesses found in dictatorships or police states, thus playing no small role in Indias emergence as a vibrant Democracy. Article 21 of the constitution says that: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.11 Prior to Maneka Gandhis
12

decision, Article 21 guaranteed the right to life and personal

liberty to citizens only against the arbitrary action of the executive, and not from legislative action. The state could not interfere with the liberty of citizens if it could support its action by a valid law. But after Maneka Gandhis decision Article 21 now protects the right to life and personal liberty of citizen not only from the Executive action but from the Legislative action also. A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if two conditions are complied
3 4

Sanders Young Burton, note 1, ibid p130-131. Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar 1980 1 SCC 93 5 Sheela Barse v Union of India 1986 3 SCC 443 6 Rudul Shah v State of Bihar 1983 4 SCC 141, 142 7 Inderjeet v State of Uttar Pradesh 1979 4 SCC 246 8 D. K Basu v State of West Bengal 1997 1 SCC 416 9 State of Maharashtra v ChampaLal AIR 1981 SC 1675 10 Commissioner Police Delhi v Registrar Delhi High Court 1996 7 SCC 11 Constitution of India, 1950. 12 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
with, first, there must be a law and secondly, there must be a procedure prescribed by that law, provided that the procedure is just, fair and reasonable. Article 21 is the celebrity provision of the Indian Constitution and occupies a unique place as a fundamental right. It guarantees right to life and personal liberty to citizens and aliens and is enforceable against the State. The new interpretation of Article 21 in Maneka Gandhis case has ushered a new era of expansion of the horizons of right to life and personal liberty. The wide dimension given to this right now covers various aspects which the founding fathers of the Constitution might or might not have visualized. Right to life and personal liberty is the modern name for what have been traditionally known as natural right. It is the primordial rights necessary for the development of human personality. It is the moral right which every human being everywhere at all times ought to have simply because of the fact that in contrast with other beings, he is rational and moral. It is the fundamental right which enables a man to chalk out his own life in the manner he likes best. Right to life and personal liberty is one of the rights of the people of India preserved by the Constitution of India, 1950 and enforced by the High Courts and Supreme Court under article 226 and 32 respectively.13

2.2.1 ARTICLE 32: A PROVISION TO ENFORCE ARTICLE 21 The most unique feature of the Indian Constitution is Article 32. It is a fundamental right guaranteed to citizens of India under Part-III of the Constitution. The provision of the article states that: (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part [Part-III] is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part. Maneka Gandhis case demonstrates how judicial activism can expand the reach of law with a view to curbing and controlling executive discretion and ensuring the basic human rights of

13

Article 21- An Analysis, 2010 available at http://jurisonline.in/?p=1589

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
the citizen. The modern interpretation of right to life is one of the historical developments of constitutional law. The subsequent ruling in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India14 expanded upon this decision when Justice Kuldip Singh described the governments role in the protection of fundamental rights: It is the obligation of the State to assume such responsibility and protect its citizens. The Court held that the governments obligation to protect fundamental rights forces it to protect the environment. Thus, from time to time the Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 broadly so as to infuse real life in the said article. It also waived the rule of locus standi so as to make the life of the citizens of India meaningful. Thus, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 in a widest possible manner and included within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. And hence we can conclude that the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution has been considerably expanded by the Indian Supreme Court, which has interpreted the right of life to mean the right to live a civilized life. Thus, in the wake of all the above cited cases it is becoming evident that the Indian Judiciary though is restrained in many ways has evolved itself as a savior of mankind by applying its judicial activism. The key chosen for widening the scope of application of provisions of law is Article 21. The Supreme Court conquered the faith of the millions of Indian people by these people friendly decisions mainly on this constitutional provision though there is delay in delivery of the decision.

14

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Chapter 3: Rights of the Arrested Persons Constitutional rights and Specific safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure: Presumption of innocence of the Accused, burden of proof on the prosecution, observance of principles of natural justice and requirements of mens rea are among the basic features of our criminal justice system. In the Adversarial System, a person is presumed to be innocent till he is proven guilty. But it can be conspicuously seen that even after the investigation is over, the accused is still kept in the custody and is often treated like an animal where he has been beaten up or even sometimes put to death. So, there is an urge to know the Constitutional and legal safeguards available against the arbitrary law enforcement. 3.1 Procedure to be followed after Arrest Constitutional and legal provisions requiring an arrested person to be informed about the grounds of arrest, her/his right to be represented by a lawyer and to be promptly produced before a court must be strictly followed. 3.1.1 Right to know the Grounds for Arrest Article 22 (1) of the Constitution lays down that an arrested person must be informed as soon as possible about the grounds of arrest; he must not be denied the right to consult and be defended by legal counsel of her/his choice. Section 50 (1) of the CrPC requires a police officer or other person without warrant to communicate to the arrested person, grounds of the arrest and full particulars of the offence under which he is being arrested. Secondly, when a subordinate officer is deputed by a senior police officer under Section 55 such subordinate officer shall before making the arrest, notify to the person to be arrested the substance of the written order given by the senior police officer specifying the offence. The right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a precious right of the arrested person.15 Article 22 (2) requires an arrested person to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours. Section 57 of the CrPC says that an arrested person cannot be in kept in custody for more than 24 hours without the order of a Magistrate16.
15

Udaybhan Shuki v State of Uttar Pradesh 1999 Cri LJ 1303

10

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Rights of an Arrested person under Article 21(1) and (2): Article 21(1) and (2) confers four following fundamental rights upon a person who has been arrested: 1. Right to be informed of the grounds of Arrest: The object underlying the provision that the ground for arrest should be communicated to the person arrested appears to be this. On learning about the grounds of Arrest, a person will be in a position to make an application where he can move to the High Court for the writ of Habeas Corpus17. Further, the information will be proved relevant to the person to prepare his defence in time. For this purpose, an accused should be communicated about his grounds of arrest. In re, Madhu Limaye case, Madhu Limaye, Member of the Lok Sabha and several other persons were arrested. Madhu Limaye addressed a petition in the form of a letter to the Supreme Court under Article 32 mentioning that he along with his companions had been arrested but had not been communicated the reasons or the grounds for arrest. He contended that there was a violation of the Article 22(1) given in the constitution. The SC held that Article 22 (1) embodies a rule which has always been regarded as vital and fundamental for safeguarding personal liberty in all legal systems where the Rule of Law prevails. Thus, this right should be available to every accused in order he can proceed with his or defence18. 2. Right to consult and to be defended by the legal practitioner: In Article 22 (1) the opportunity for securing services of lawyer is alone guaranteed. The Article does not require the state to extend legal aid as such but only requires to allow all reasonable facilities to engage a lawyer to the person arrested and detained in custody. The choice of counsel is entirely left to the arrested person. The right to consult arises soon after arrest. In Janardhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad19 one of the main points urged on behalf of the petitioners was that in criminal cases Nos. 17 & 18 of 1949, there was no fair trial, in as much as the persons accused in those cases were not afforded any opportunity to instruct counsel and they had remained undefended throughout the trial. So it was contended that the
16

Mandeep Tiwana, Human Rights and Policing; Landmark Supreme Court Directives and National Human Rights Commission Guidelines, New Delhi, April 2005. 17 H.G Kulkarni, Rights of an Arrested Person under Artilce 22(1) and (2),2011, p 60. 18 Kulkarni, ibid at p 60-61. 19 Janardhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad 1951 AIR 217.

11

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
whole trial in these cases was bad, because the accused were denied the right of being defended by a pleader. In Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani20 the Supreme Court observed that Article 22 (1) directs that the right to consult an advocate of his choice shall not be denied to any person who is arrested. This does not mean that persons who are not under arrest or custody can be denied that right. The spirit and 6th sense of Article 22 (1) is that it is fundamental to the rule of law that the services of a lawyer shall be available for consultation to any accused person under circumstances of near-custodial interrogation. Moreover, the observance of the right against self incrimination is best promoted by conceding to the accused the right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice. Lawyer's presence is a constitutional claim in some circumstances in our country also, and in the context of Article 20(3) is an assurance of awareness and observance of the right to silence. The Court referred to Miranda decision which had insisted that if an accused person asks for lawyer's assistance, at the stage of interrogation; it shall be granted before commencing or continuing with the questioning. The Court further observed that Article 20 (3) and Article 22 (1) may, in a way, be telescoped by making it prudent for the police to permit the advocate of the accused, if there be one, to be present at the time he is examined21. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.22 the Supreme Court held that right of arrested person upon request, to have someone informed about his arrest and right to consult privately with lawyers are inherent in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes available in civilised society governed by the rules of law. The rights inherent in Article 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution require to be scrupulously protected. Any form of torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be denied to convicts, under-trials, Where a person has been arrested and is being held in custody in a police station or other premises, he shall be entitled, if he so
20 21

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani AIR 1978 SC 1025. Kulkarni, ibid at p 66-67. 22 Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.AIR 1994 SCC 260.

12

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
requests, to have one friend or relative or other person who is known to him or who is likely to take an interest in his welfare told, as soon as practicable except detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law. Therefore, the Supreme Court issued in D.K.Basu v. State of W.B23 the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures. 3. Right to be provided with a lawyer by the State: The Indian socio-legal milieu makes free legal service at trial and higher levels, an imperative processual piece of criminal justice where deprivation of life or personal liberty hangs in the judicial balance. Partial statutory implementation of the mandate is found in S. 304 Cr. P.C., and in other situations courts cannot be inert in the face of Article 21 and 39-A. Maneka Gandhi's Case has laid down that personal liberty cannot be cut out or cut down without fair legal procedure. Enough has been set out to establish that a prisoner, deprived of his freedom by court sentence but entitled to appeal against such verdict, can claim, as part of his protection under Article 21 and as implied in his statutory right to appeal, the necessary concomitant of right to counsel to prepare and argue his appeal. If a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment, is virtually unable to exercise his constitutional or statutory right of appeal, inclusive of special leave to appeal for want of legal assistance, there is implicit in the Court under Article 142 read with Articles 21 and 39-A of the Constitution, power to assign counsel for such imprisoned individual 'for doing complete justice'24. The Case of Ranjan Dwivedi v. Union of India25 raised a question whether the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution comprehends the right of an accused to be supplied with a lawyer by the State. The SC held that the accused who is being tried for murder under the Sessions court is not entitled to the grant of a writ of mandamus for the enforcement of the Directive Principle enshrined in Article 39 A by ordaining the Union of India to give financial assistance to him to engage a counsel of his choice on a scale equivalent to, or commensurate with, the fees that are being paid to the counsel appearing for the State. As is clear from the terms of Article 39 A, the social objective of equal justice and free legal aid has to be implemented by suitable
23 24

D.K.Basu v. State of W.B AIR 1997 SC 610. Kulkarni, ibid at p 74-75. 25 Ranjan Dwivedi v. Union of India 1983 SCR (2) 982

13

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
legislation or by formulating schemes for free legal aid. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, lies by way of making an application before the Trial Court under sub-section (1) of S. 304 of the Cr. P.C. and not by a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. 4. Right to be produced before a magistrate: The Constitution commands that every person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours excluding the time requisite for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the Magistrate, but S. 4 of the Act requires the police officer who takes the abducted person into custody to deliver such person to the custody of the officer in charge of the nearest camp for the reception and detention of abducted persons. The absence from the Act of the salutary provisions to be found in Article 22 (1) and (2) as to the right of the arrested person to be informed of the grounds of such arrest and to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice is also significant. It is further observed that broadly speaking, arrests may be classified into two categories, namely, arrests under warrants issued by a Court and arrests otherwise than under such warrants. The warrant quite clearly has to state that the person to be arrested stands charged with a certain offence. The warrant ex facie sets out the reason for the arrest, namely, that the person to be arrested has committed or is suspected to have committed or is likely to commit some offence. In short, the warrant contains a clear accusation against the person to be arrested. Section 80 (now S.75) of Cr.P.C. 89requires that the police officer or other person executing a warrant must notify the substance thereof to the person to be arrested, and, if so required, shall show him the warrant. It is thus abundantly clear that the person to be arrested is informed of the grounds for his arrest before he is actually arrested. When police though obtained remand of arrested person without producing him before magistrate within requisite period, it was held that there was gross violation of his rights under Article 21 and 22 (2). In Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K26, the Court observed that when a person is imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases

26

Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K AIR 1986 SC 494

14

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
the Court has the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. Partial aspects of Sections 41 and 42 Crpc: Sections 41 and 42 shows the width of the power of arrest vested in police officers. Take for example, the ground in clause (b) of Section 41. It empowers a police officer to arrest a person who is in possession of any implement of house breaking and the burden is placed upon that person to satisfy that possession of such implement is not without lawful excuse. What does an implement of house breaking mean? Any iron/steel rod or any implement used by way-side repairers of punctured tyres can also be used for house breaking27. Similarly, clause (d). Any person found in possession of stolen property and who may be reasonably suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing. What a wide discretion? Why, take clause (a) itself. The situations covered by it are: (i) a person who is concerned in any cognizable offence, (ii), a person against whom a reasonable complaint is made that he is concerned in a cognizable offence; (iii) a person against whom credible information is received showing that he is concerned in any cognizable offence and (iv) a person who is reasonably suspected of being concerned in any cognizable offence. The generality of language and the consequent wide discretion vesting in police officers is indeed enormous and that has been the very source of abuse and misuse. The qualifying words reasonable, credible and reasonably in the Section mean nothing in practice. They have become redundant; in effect28. 3.2 Right of Bail as a patent weapon against arbitrary arrest The rights of arrested persons which include the right to bail has for a long time and in many jurisdictions been regarded as one of the most important rights a person is entitled to enjoy in a democratic society. Article 14(4) of the Constitution provides that 'where a person arrested, restricted or detained is not tried within a reasonable time, then without prejudice to any further proceedings that may be brought against him, he shall be released either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions including in particular, conditions reasonably necessary to ensure that he appears at a later date for trial or for proceedings preliminary to trial'.

27 28

Consultation Paper on Law relating to Arrest, Law Commission of India, September 24, 2007 , at p 6-7. Consultancy paper relating to Arrest, ibid at p 7.

15

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

Section 50(2) provides that where a police officer arrests without any warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf. Despite these provisions, this right has been consistently violated by some agencies in the justice delivery system. The result is that indigent arrested persons have inadequate and unequal access to justice through the formal legal system. Without equal access to the law, the system not only robs the poor of their only protection, but it places it in the hands of their oppressors29. The bail is a very potent weapon in the hand of the person who is arrested . The right can be exercised on different consideration ranging from lack of medical examination of accused on suspicion of him being tortured, non supply of challan and other documents under section 207 of crpc. These are certain irregularities which are considered as material irregularities when it comes to the Right of Bail to an individual. It is prominently seen that the right bail is weighed on the gravity of the offence. However, the gravity of the offence has nothing to do with the right of bail .It has been reiterated in many judgements that bail is a right and jail is an exception

29

Ruth Guribie, Bail: A Right or A Priviledge?, Access to Justice CHRI-Africa Office, 14 August 2013.

16

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Chapter 4: 4.1 Analysing arrest in context of the Purpose of Criminal Justice System and the Present Scenario 4.1.1 The Ostensible purpose of Arrest There are several purposes of Arrest, with or without subsequent detention. The traditional purposes include securing someones appearance at Court who has breached a court order or failed to answer a summons or requisition (a written command to attend court), as part of transit between court and prison; and holding someone in custody in order to charge them. Arrests for those reasons are all to facilitate an ongoing prosecution. They pose no great problems of principle or practice. Another traditional use of arrest is for the arrestees own protection. For example someone who appears to be mentally disordered and in immediate need of care or control can be taken to a place of safety for up to 72 hours in order that a medical assessment can be taken undertaken. This power (deriving from sec 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983) is not dependant on an offence having been committed but it may be may be used to arrest only those found in public places where a constable believes removal is necessary in the interests of that person or for the protection of others30. In practice such preventive arrest powers can be used for other purposes, such as maintaining police authority, reassuring the public, or managing people seen as carriers of risk. Unfortunately we have no space to explore such protective powers in depth, notwithstanding their importance31. The other traditional purposes of arrest are to prevent a crime from further taking place, and to maintain public order. Arrests for these purposes are not always to facilitate prosecution, and there may not be enough evidence to prosecute at the time of arrest (although the use of investigate powers allied to arrest may result in such evidence emerging). This type of preemptive arrest appears to be growing in importance and is increasingly controversial. Preventive quasi-arrest powers have multiplied in recent years as part of the growing emphasis on risk management. For example Sec. 16 of Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 gave the police the power to remove school age children in certain circumstances from public
30

Sanders Young Burten, Criminal Justice(Fourth Edition), Oxford University Press,2010, New York at p 132. 31 Sanders Young Burten, ibid at p 132-133.

17

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
places, and take them to their school or other appropriate place. The aim here is not to take police or court action., but to deal with truancy and the crime problems which sometimes accompany it. The same Act allows the police to remove any child found in breach of such a curfew to the childs place of residence. Section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 provides another example of legislation seeking risk management through restricting peoples freedom of movement. In brief, areas reasonably believed to suffer persistent anti-social acts by groups of two or more persons may be designated as dispersal areas. Designation provides individual police officers who reasonably believe that the presence in the area of particular groups of two or more persons has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated , harassed , alarmed or distressed with the power to direct those persons to disperse, or to leave the relevant locality (if not a resident within it) for up to 24 hours. Failure to comply with a direction is an offence32. And under Sec 30(6) of the 2003 Act, the police may, using reasonable force, remove persons under the age of 16 found in dispersal area between 9pm and 6am to their place of residence. As with other similar preemptive powers, no particular restrictions appear on the face of the statute, which means that 15 year olds popping out to late-opening shops for their parents were potentially subject to the indignity of being marched back home by reading in some fairly obvious, if minimal, due process restrictions to this and other powers. Finally, many arrests, for variety of offences, are made, at least ostensibly, with a view to developing a case against someone suspected of having already committed a specific criminal offence. A less traditional purpose of arrest, then, which developed in the late twentieth century, is in order to obtain or secure evidence. This evidence can come from a variety of sources, including interviews with witnesses, searches of property, collection of forensic evidence and questioning of the suspect themselves33.

32

Sanders Young Burten, ibid at p134-135, Another broadly drawn dispersal power is contained in s 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. This allows the police to require people to leave a locality and not return for upto 48 hours if h=they deem their presence likely to cause or to contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in that locality. Failure to comly is an offence. 33 Sanders Young Burten, ibid at p 134,cited in Mc Conville M, Corroboration and Confessions ( Royal Commision on Criminal Justice Research Study No. 13) (London:HMSO, 1993) pp 24-36.

18

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
4.1.2 The unofficial purpose of Arrest Anything can follow arrest and detention: no action at all, an official police warning, an on the spot fire fine, a police charge (a formal allegation forming the starting point for a prosecution) or, indeed, release followed by a summons to appear at court. Arrest is now simply an exercise of police which does not, in itself, determine the next stage. Arrest and detention now often has unofficial purposes, some of which amount to an abuse of power. Some arrests are to secure evidence of offences unrelated to the offences for which arrests are ostensibly carried out, committed either by the arrestees or by others. Another purpose is to put the frighteners on arrestees- to warn them not to take certain action or to punish them for actions they are believed to have carried out. Here, there is no intention to prosecute. Arrest and detention is used as a form of social disciplining or summary justice. Sometimes it appears that the police arrest someone in order to distract attention away from their own malpractice. Another purpose is to control individuals and groups, especially in public order situations, again with no intention of prosecuting. Yet another purpose is to facilitate the construction of useful databases, since many forms of physical evidence (such as fingerprints, photographs and DNA samples) can only be forcibly taken from those under arrest, (or, increasingly, under quasi-arrest). The Courts often fail to acknowledge those unofficial purposes of arrest, reducing their ability to restrain the police. It follows from all these that many people are now arrested than once happened. Law is permissive. It allows the police to exercise all manner of powers, but does not require them to do so. In reality, the police decide not to arrest far more often than they decide to actually do so. This varies from offence to offence. Offences do not ignore bank robberies and rapes just because they are not obliged to arrests suspects. But in some situations certain types of offence are routinely ignored or dealt with informally34. 4.3 Misuse of power of arrest: Notwithstanding the safeguards contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Constitution referred to above, the fact remains that the power of arrest is wrongly and illegally exercised in a large number of cases all over the country. Very often this power is

34

Sanders Young Burten, ibid at p 138-140.

19

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
utilized to extort monies and other valuable property or at the instance of an enemy of the person arrested. The vast discretion given by the CrPC to arrest a person even in the case of a bailable offence (not only where the bailable offence is cognizable but also where it is non-cognizable) and the further power to make preventive arrests (e.g. under section 151 of the CrPC and the several city police enactments), clothe the police with extraordinary power which can easily be abused Neither there is any in-house mechanism in the police department to check such misuse or abuse nor does the complaint of such misuse or abuse to higher police officers bear fruit except in some exceptional cases. We must repeat that we are not dealing with the vast discretionary powers of a mere civil service simpliciter, we are dealing with the vast discretionary powers of the members of a service which is provided with firearms, which are becoming more and more sophisticated with each passing day (which is technically called a civil service for the purposes of Service Jurisprudence) and whose acts touch upon the liberty and freedom of the citizens of this country and not merely their entitlements and properties. This is a civil service which is being increasingly militarized, no doubt, to meet the emerging exigencies35. 4.4 The concept of Narco analysis in view of Constitutional rights and Human Rights: Furthermore, In the Narco-test analysis where the truth drug or truth serum is used to obtain the information from the subjects who are unable or willing to provide the same, the Police officers use this as a tool to harass the accused in the custody. It assumes significance as probe agencies have used these Narco-analysis techniques in a number of high profile cases involving fake stamp paper kingpin Abdul Karim Telgi, Nithari killings accused and Aarushi murder case suspects as well as parents of the teenager. The application of Narco analysis test involves the fundamental question pertaining to judicial matters and also to Human Rights. The legal position of applying this technique as an investigative aid raises genuine issues like encroachment of an individuals rights, liberties and freedom36. In case of State Bombay v. Kathikalu37, it was shown that the accused was compelled to make statement likely to be in criminative of himself. Compulsion means duress, which includes threatening, beating or imprisonment of wife, parent or child or
35 36

Consultancy Paper relating to Arrest, ibid at p 6-9. Sonakshi Verma, The concept of Narco analysis in view of Constitutional rights and Human rights at p 2. 37 State Bombay v. Kathikalu AIR 1961 Cri LJ , Vol 2, 2007.

20

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
person. Thus where the accused makes a confession without any inducement, threat or promise art 20(3) does not apply. The privilege against self-incrimination thus enables the maintenance of human privacy and observance of civilized standards in the enforcement of criminal justice. It also goes against the maxim Nemo Tenetur se Ipsum Accusare that is, No man, not even the accused himself can be compelled to answer any question, which may tend to prove him guilty of a crime, he has been accused of. If the confession from the accused is derived from any physical or moral compulsion (be it under hypnotic state of mind) it should stand to be rejected by the court. The right against forced self-incrimination, widely known as the Right to Silence is enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Constitution. In the CrPC, the legislature has guarded a citizens right against self-incrimination. S.161 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that every person is bound to answer truthfull y all questions, put to him by [a police] officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose that person to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture. A few democratic countries, India most notably, still continue to use narco analysis. The issue of using Narco analysis test as a tool of interrogation in India has been widely debated. The extent to which it is accepted in our legal system and our society is something, which will be clearer in the near future. There have been orders of various High Courts upholding the validity of Narco analysis. These judgments are in stark contrast with the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court interpreting Art. 20(3). The veracity lies in the fact that Narco analysis is still a nascent interrogation technique in the Indian criminal justice system without any rules or guidelines. The Central government must make a clear policy stand on narco analysis because what is at stake is India's commitment to individual freedoms and a clean criminal justice system38. No individual should be forced or subjected to such techniques involuntarily and by doing so it amounts to unwarranted intrusion of personal liberty. Further, involuntarily subjecting an accused, a suspect or a witness to such techniques violates Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, which prohibits self-incrimination. Chapter 5: Need for Reforms

38

Sonakshi Verma, ibid, at p 6-5.

21

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
5.1 Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court: The effort of the courts, and in particular of the Supreme Court over the last more than two decades has been to circumscribe the vast discretionary power vested by law in Police by imposing several safeguards and to regulate it by laying down numerous guidelines and by subjecting the said power to several conditionalities. The effort throughout has been to prevent its abuse while leaving it free to discharge the functions entrusted to the Police. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P, the SC held that the arrest should not be merely on suspicion about the persons complicity in the crime and the police officer must be satisfied about necessity and justification of such arrest on the basis of some investigation and the reasons for arrest much be recorded by the police officer in his diary and the arrest should normally be avoided except in case of heinous crime39. In another case, Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration40, in this case the court rejected the hands-off doctrine and ruled that fundamental right do not flee the person as he enters the prison although there may be incarceration. In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra41, it was highlighted that Women in custody are particularly vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse. Courts take a very serious view of complaints regarding custodial rape 34 or harassment. Of late, the National and State Human Rights Commissions and the Women Commission are also playing an increasingly proactive role to see such instances do not go unpunished. It is the duty of the officer in-charge of a police station/post to ensure that women are not harmed and search of their person are carried out only by women with strict regard to decency.In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration42, Preventive powers under Sections 107, 109 & 110 CrPC should be exercised with due caution. Care must be taken to ensure innocent persons are not harassed and presented before magistrates for executing good behaviour bonds under the garb that they are suspected persons or habitual of enders. Power of preventive arrest under Section 151 CrPC 40 should not used randomly by the police to pick people of the streets, especially those belonging to economically weaker sections of society. Unjustified use of these sections can invite judicial scrutiny. Magistrates have a duty to ensure that preventive sections are not being misused by police officers.

39 40

Consultation on law relating to Arrest,ibid at p7 -8. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1980 AIR 1579 41 Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra 1983 SCC 96 42 Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration 1980 SCC 526

22

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
While the Police Officers must know about their authority and powers, citizens too, must know about their rights and safeguards provided under the Constitutional Law and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These safeguards are provided with the intention to protect the Right to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Further, these rights are provided to protect the interests of the citizens and no one has an authority to violate their rights. A proper balance of individuals and the public interests are achieved through the mechanism of rule of law. This is the essence of Human rights Law. Also, there is need of proper mechanism to check the vast discretionary powers of the Police Officers. In D.K Basu v State of West Bengal Supreme Court held that Custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity, the Supreme Court said. The situation is aggravated when violence occurs within the four walls of a police station by those who are supposed to protect citizens. The Court accepted that the police have a difficult task in light of the deteriorating law and order situation; political turmoil; student unrest; and terrorist and underworld activities. They agreed that the police have a legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate her/him in the course of investigation. However, the law does not permit the use of third degree methods or torture on an accused person. Actions of the State must be right, just and fair; torture for extracting any kind of confession would neither be right nor just not fair.43

Supreme Court Directives44 1. Use of third degree methods or any form of torture to extract information is not permitted. 2. Police personnel carrying out arrest and interrogation must bear accurate, visible and clear identification / name tags with their designations. 3. Particulars of all personnel handling interrogation of an arrested person must be recorded in a register.

43 44

D.K Basu v State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610. Mandeep Tiwana, Human Rights and Policing: Landmark Supreme Court Directives and National Human Rights Commission Guidelines available at http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/hrc/humanrights_policing.pdf

23

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
4. A memo of arrest stating the time and place of arrest must be prepared by the police officer carrying out an arrest. It should be attested by at least one witness who is either a family member of the arrested person or a respectable person from the locality where the arrest is made. The memo should also be counter-signed by the arrested person. 5. The arrested or detained person is entitled to inform a friend, relative or any other person interested in her/his welfare about the arrest and place of detention as soon as practicable. The arrested person must be made aware of this right as soon as s/he is arrested or detained. 6. The arrested person may be allowed to meet her/his lawyer during interrogation but not throughout the interrogation. 7. The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of the arrested person must be notified by telegraph to next friend or relative of the arrested person within 8-12 hours of arrest in case such person lives outside the district or town. The information should be given through the District Legal Aid Organisation and police station of the area concerned. 8. An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention in regard to the arrest. The name of the friend/relative of the arrested person who has been informed and the names of the police personnel in whose custody, the arrested person is being kept should be entered in the register. 9. The arrested person should be examined by a medical doctor at the time of arrest if s/he so requests. All bodily injuries on the arrested person should be recorded in the inspection memo which should be signed by both the arrested person and the police officer making the arrest. A copy of the memo should be provided to the arrested person. 10. The arrested person should be subject to a medical examination every 48 hours by a trained doctor who has been approved by the State Health Department. 11. Copies of all documents relating to the arrest including the memo of arrest should be sent to the Area Magistrate for her/his record. 12. A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters where information regarding arrests should be prominently displayed. The police officer making the arrest must inform the police control room within 12 hours of the arrest. 13. Departmental action and contempt of court proceedings should be initiated against those who fail to follow above-mentioned directives. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is the law of the land and binds everyone. The

24

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Supreme Court decisions included in this compilation relate to matters impinging on the basic human rights of individuals to life and liberty, which are sacrosanct. So, there is an urge to know about the precious rights available under the constitution and also the safeguards provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the laws are present in abundance in the country but the problem is proper implementation of laws. 5.2 Critical Assessment of the Rights given to the arrested persons Practical aspects of Section 41 and 42, Cr. PC- A reading of the provisions and in particular of the provisions of section 41 and 42 shows the width of the power vested in police officers. Take for example, the ground in clause (b) of section empowers a police officer to arrest a person who is in possession of any implement of house-breaking and the burden is placed upon that the person to satisfy that possession of such implement is not without lawful excuse. Now what does the implement of house breaking apply. It can even be a iron rod. Such vague things have given unreasonable power in the hands of the police officers. Such wide discretionary powers given in the hands of the police officers often results in arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention thus violating their individual liberty, Balancing the societal interests and protection of rights of the accused: We are not unaware that crime rate is going up in our country for various reasons which need not be accounted here. Terrorism, Drugs and organized crime have become so acute that the special measures have become necessary to fight them not only at the national level but also at the international level. We recognise that ensuring a balance between societal interest in peace and protection of the rights of the accused is difficult one but it has to be done. We also recognize the fundamental significance of the Human Rights, which are implicit in Part III of our Constitution and of the necessity to preserve, protect and promote the Rule of Law which constitutes the bedrock of our Constitutional System. In the light of growing importance of Human Right instances of arbitrary arrests, custody death are seen to be the offences of the State against its own individuals.

25

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
CONCLUSION The apprehension of violence in custody has increased manifold in recent years in a hysteric atmosphere created in the name of containing terrorism and extremism, the police have acquired unfettered power with the passing of various draconian laws like TADA, POTA etc. at the national level and "anti-extremism" laws passed by various state governments. There has been much discussion concerning the abuse of personal liberty and private property from the exercise of extraordinary rights retained by the government for the protection of the public. Quarantine regulations, and license or prohibitory laws, where the state assumes full control of the individual and the destruction of his effects for the safety of society, may be cited as instances of the evil. The people should be fully protected from the abuse of power on the part of the police, who are, for the most part, ignorant men of violent passions, placed in positions of seemingly high authority, and often disposed or tempted to outrage the laws and the liberty of the public. If resisted, they are often the accusers and the sole witnesses. Their power should be carefully confined to the preservation of the public peace, and any attempt to go beyond this limit should be promptly punished. The correction of the evil is to be found in the exact determination of their authority. Arrests for trivial causes, without warrant, not only tend to create breaches of the peace, but render the law and its ministers the subject of public contempt. Citizens must prompt to resent the unlawful attacks of officers, and should pursue offenders by complaints to the appointing powers, by criminal prosecutions and civil suits for damages. The law is on their side, and with determination, much can be done to correct the present evil. Of so much importance to the founders was the personal liberty of the citizens that they incorporated an amendment in the Constitution to the effect that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. Much of the trouble has arisen from the submissiveness of the citizens to any commands which the officers choose to make, and it is time that these outrages under the guise of police power should be met with prompt appeals to the law. They are a constant menace to the welfare of the people, and are opposed in every way to the spirit of our free institutions.

26

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Even though the directives of the Supreme Court are aimed at containing the violation of rights of common people by the police, from the above sample survey with all its limitations it may be concluded that these are going to be a failure and may ultimately end up in another exercise in technicalities mainly due to the following reasons:

Technical loopholes - There is no safeguard if the police arrests someone without warrant or simply picks up and detains in the lockup without any record and tortures the detainee. In view of the many arbitrary powers given to the police under law the police has ample scope to manipulate the technical safeguards devised by the Court - it can manipulate the arrest witness by influence or intimidation, influence the doctor examining the detainees and can even intimidate the victim of torture not to testify against the police before the doctor or the magistrate. Absence of monitoring agency - No well-defined independent and regular monitoring agency to oversee the proper implementation of the directives has been provided for in the directives of the court. Even though the Supreme Court has appointed one committee in each state consisting of judges of High Courts to oversee the implementation but it is not much effective. Lack of earnestness by the government - It need not be mentioned further how the government's attitude remains frustrating in implementing the directives. While the government is eloquent about modernisation of police and appears to be prepared to spend any thing for it in the name of improving law and order situation, it remains quite unconcerned about implementing any preventive steps against the umpteen cases of violation or basic civil rights by the police. Ingrained Feudal attitude of the police - The police takes any talk of citizen's rights as an anathema and affront to its authority.

Bibliography

27

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Primary Sources: 1. Indian Constitution 2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 4. World Report 2012: India available at http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/worldreport-2012-india 5. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 6. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 7. The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, 1988 8. One Hundred Eightieth Report on Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the Right to Silence, Law Commission of India, May 2002 Secondary Sources: Books: Foley Conor, Combating Torture, A Manual for Judges and Prosecutors, Sanders Andrew, Richard Young and Mandy Burton, Criminal Justice, (Fourth edition), Oxford Law Publications. Ratanlal and Dheerajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2011. Articles Arshad Hamzah Amer, Rights of accused persons: Are safeguards being reduced?, Manoj Mate, The Origins of Due Process in India: The Role of Borrowing in Personal Liberty and Preventive Detention Cases, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, no. 1, 2010

28

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Alexander P.J, Some recommendations from the Law Commission of India on arrest and detention, Vol 1, No. 2, 2002 Tiwana Mandeep, Human Rights and Policing: Landmark Supreme Court Directives and National Human Rights Commission Guidelines, April 2005. Kalhan Anil, Mamta Kaushal and Gerald Conroy, Colonial Continuities: Human Rights, Terrorism and Security Laws in India, Columbia Journal of International Law, Kulkarni H.G, Rights of an Arrested Person under Artilce 22(1) and (2), 2011. Consultation Paper on Law relating to Arrest, Law Commission of India. Verma Sonakshi, The concept of Narco analysis in view of Constitutional rights and Human rights.

Case Laws 1. Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579 2. Anwar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1965 CriLJ 212 3. State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri, AIR 424, 1966 SCR (1) 702 4. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 5. A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88 6. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2178, 1993 SCR (1)594 7. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1295, SCR (1) 332 8. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1988 (3) 15 9. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1535, 1980 SCR (3) 855 10. Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administratior, Union Territory and others, AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516 11. D. K Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 1 SCC 216

29

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
12. Janardan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad, 1951 AIR 217 13. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025 14. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P, AIR 1994 SC 260 15. Ranjan Dwivedi v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SCR (2) 98 16. Bhim Singh v. State of J&K AIR 1986 SC 494 17. State of Bombay v. Kathikala, AIR 1961 Cr LJ Vol 2, 2002.

Internet Sources 1. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/1978/9/09_chapter3.pdf. 2. http://www.sangrurpolice.in/safety-tips/d-k-basu-case-guidelines/ 3. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training9chapter5en.pdf 4. http://www.humanrightsinitiative.orgg 5.http://apcrindia.org 6. Lawcommissionofindia.nic.in 7. apps.americanbar.org 8. http://www.chanrobles.com

30