CHAPTER VI

Supreme Court as the guiding light to Special

Investigating Agencies
(I) Political Pragmatism in Investigating Agencies
The Central Bureau of Investigation is neither an intelligence agency nor a
security organization. It is an investigating agency having the primary and solo job
of conducting investigations in order to expose rather conceal. The Union
Governments decision to exempt certain central investigating agencies from the
purview of RTI Act (Right to Information) has drawn sharp criticism from various
spheres. The investigating agencies have to be open and transparent organizations
with the least scope of concealing. If at all, secrecy is required, that is only and only
in intelligence agencies; not in investigating agencies. It is for the simple reason that
intelligence agencies elicit undercover informations which must not reach the
territory of enemies while the investigating agencies use the information gained
from their intelligence counterparts in investigating crimes and also preventing
crimes. It is very clear in unambiguous terms, that investigations in fact need no
secrecy after a certain stage. An accused generally tries to destroy evidence against
him, when he gets premature disclosure of information during investigation.
Investigations, actually demand complete transparency after a definite stage. The
Right to Information Act Clearly states in Section 8(g)m . There shall be no
obligation to give any citizen information which would impede the process of
investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders The provision includes
central investigating agencies together with similar agencies of all the state
governments as well. The above provision makes it crystal clear that the prevalent
laws are quite adequate and providing further secrecy to the investigating agencies is
arbitrary and malicious.
Indian democracy is run on the wheals of Rule of Law. By exempting the
investigating agencies from the purview of RTI act, we will be negating the Rule of
Law, which our constitution provides. This exemption is nothing but an increased
step towards more corruption and criminality. The Union Governments move
offers the government with a fine robe to protect its own bureaucrats, opponents
and people at high places. The public wants to be governed by clean hands and also
they have the right to know who has the dirty hands. There seems to be no rational
201
argument for taking the investigating agencies out from under the RTI Act. No other
country who follows the dictates of Rule of Law has given such exemptions to the
investigating agencies in their countries. Then why do India feels the need to give
such exemptions? It is a retrograde step with undesirable consequences. This step
will gift India with another class of privileged people who would be far beyond the
operation of laws. It is an acknowledged fact that corruption is a matter of concern
for our country and the investigating agencies are not a step behind in increasing
corruption.
Such a move by the Union is in excess of the powers delegated to the Centre.
Section 24 of the Right to Information Act says that the government can exempt
only intelligence and security organizations from the obligations under the RTI
Act. Whereas the Central Bureau of Investigation and the National Investigation
Agency, both of them do not lie in either category: Both of them are investigating
agencies established by laws of Parliament. Both the investigating agencies and the
politicians are the agents of law in a democratic set-up; and there seems to exist a
trend of criminalization of politics. In a democratic society, which is committed to
social justice, the special investigating agencies are expected to help maintain a just
society. But what is the just system and which just system the investigating
agencies should protect is difficult to decide.
The affluent who are in power and in possession of all the resources may
have different views of the justice system than those, who are the poor deprived
class, which are often victimized by the powerful.267
The demarcation line for the criminals have busted with the globalization and
crime going international. International Crime is a peril which must be faced
cooperatively. Every nation demands an international agency to deal with the
problem and thus have a special investigating agency which is laced with all
channels leading to capturing such criminals. INTER POL is such, specialized
agency which is mainly concerned with the establishment of direct intercourse
between police forces, outside the ordinary channels of diplomacy. In recent years
the assistance of Interpol has been sought and made available in the arrest of
criminals. United Nations Organisation (U.N.O.), takes a great, interest in Interpol.
Without the intervention of INTERPOL, the spacious world would be a safer place

267
Sinha, 1977
202
for absconding criminals from any country. With almost, most of the countries as
member of INTERPOL, the problem of international crime is controlled up to a
large length. CBI (NCB) is the Indian agency for cooperation with Interpol.
Interpols mission is to enhance international police cooperation, to help member
countries avoid legal obstacles to police cooperation across borders. It facilitate the
widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal law enforcement authorities
by providing member countries with the technical means whereby they can share or
exchange information. Interpol itself is not an investigating agency, it is a means
which enable global access to police data and information.
Interpol helps CBI (NCB) with operational support on specific priority crime
areas and helps the CBI (NCB) to prevent and fight crime. Interpol is not a police
agency itself with the legal power to detain or arrest anyone nor can they execute
search warrants but they provide assistance to the member countries such as India
CBI NCB to detain or arrest or execute search warrants. Interpol is not a police
agency which can conduct criminal investigations in member countries but they do
help their members do that:
Neuliality is the basic principle which the Interpol follows enshrined in
Article 3 of its Constitution. In February 2012, CBI organized the First Interpol
Global Program on Anti-corruption and Asset Recovery in partnership with the
Interpol-Anti Corruption office. This programme was aimed at capacity building of
the agencies involved in fighting corruption and for tracking down the proceeds of
corruption.
In Vineet Narain V/s Union of India268 the Supreme Court was faced with
the matter of diffidence in prosecutional record of investigating agencies. Central
investigation agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation reflected their refusal
to pursue investigations against high profile politicians and members of the
Executive, due to the extraneous influence from the ruling classes, thus leading the
Supreme Court to examine the structure of these agencies and to consider the
necessary steps which would provide permanent insulation to the agencies against
extraneous influences to enable them to discharge their duties in the manner required
for proper implementation of the rule of law.269 In order to have fair and impartial

268
Vineet Narain & Ors V/s. VOI & Another, (1998) ISCC 226
269
Ibid., p. 234.
203
agencies, the supreme court shouldered the responsibility and to provide a solution
till such time as the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation
to cover the field. The Supreme Court deeply analysed the problem and found a
serious human rights aspect involved in such a proceeding because the predating
corruption in public life, if permitted to continue unchecked, would ultimately defeat
the Indian Polity.270 The supreme court delineated the structure of the investigating
agencies like, CBI, Enforcement Directorate and the Central Vigilance Commission.
Pursuant to these directions, the Legislature enacted the Central Vigilance
Commission Act Codifying the directions.271 An authority was created by the
Supreme Court to continually monitor investigations against high-profile political
suspects though a continuing mandamus On the CBIs investigation. Recently the
right has been involved once again by the court in the 2G Spectrum Case by the
CBI and Enforcement Directorate.272 In a recommendation for establishing an
independent entity akin to the office of Independent entity akin to the office of
Independent Counsel in the United States273 to investigate cases where interference
by the Executive is natural. The Court said in the case (Vineet Narains Case) that
[W]e are of the view that the time for these drastic steps has not come. It is our hope
that it never will, for we entertain the behalf that the investigative agencies shall
function for better now.274 It is now clearly evident that both the Legislature and the
Executive are now suffering from the deadly disease named Corruption and the
time has ripened in order to create an organization or structure which has all the
powers to investigate and prosecute those found to be guilty of abusing the law.
Such a structure should have least resistance from the ruling class.
Special Investigating Agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation and
the Enforcement Directorate do not conduct the entire investigation of charges and
potential violations of law against the members of the Executive. The prosecution of

270
Ibid, p. 268.
271
The Parliament of India enacted the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 which amended the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. However, the independence of the CBI has been
diluted with this enactment, vide infra n.21.
272
Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. Vs U.O.I. & Ors. MANU/SC/1074/2010- (Dec, 16,
2010).
273
At the time of the hearing and the judgement, the United States Witnessed the investigation by
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr in his investigation in a Real estate investment by President
Clinton and Hillary Clinton which was followed by the widely read investigation into President
Clintons misdemeanors in office.
274
Ibid, p. 272

204
such violators is handled by the CBIs Directorate of Prosecution. Even after the
guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narains case, there needs a
significant structural reform of the Central Bureau of Investigation. Autonomy and
Independence are the two areas where the CBI lacks.
The Central Bureau of Investigation275 is a successor organization to the
Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE), with the DSPE being made one of its
divisions. While examining the validity of a directive issued by the Ministeries and
Departments in the Central Government (Single Directive) that required the CBI
to seek approval of the Central Government before pursuing investigation against
the bureaucrats of the level of Joint Secretary and above, the court noted that the
general superintendence over the functioning of the Department and specification of
the offences which are to be investigated by the agency is not the same as and would
not include within it the control of the initiation and the actual process of
investigation, i.e., direction.276
Once the jurisdiction was conferred on the CBI to investigate an offence via
notification u/s 3 the powers of investigation could not be curtailed by any executive
instruction. Therefore in the absence of any statutory requirement for prior
permission or sanction of the Executive for investigation, the Central Government
could not impose it as condition precedent for initiation of the investigation. Thus
the Single Directive was held to be null and void.
The Parliament has codified and reintroduced one of the main provision of
the Single Directive. This provision prohibits the CBI from conducting any
inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by
(a) the employees of the Central Government of level of joint secretary and
above; and
(b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations
established by or under any Central Act, Government Companies, societies
and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government, without the
approval of the Central Government.

275
The DSPE is now called, Investigation and Anti Computer Division of the CBI
276
Vineet Narain, p. 262
205
Proviso to Section 8(1) of the CVC Act, 2003 expressly spells out that the
commission shall not exercise its power of superintendence in a manner so as to
require the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate or dispose of any case
in a particular manner (in view of the courts enunciation of the meaning of
superintendence in the DSPE Act),277 However, the Act, does not make this proviso
applicable to the superintendence of the Central Government.
To add to it, the superintendence of the CVC is for investigation of alleged
offences committed by public servants under the Prevention of Corruption act,
1998, also going through Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, we realize
that the definition of Public Servants do not include politicians and other public
servants. The CBI has to often wait for an order from the concerned High Court or
the Supreme Court. This obstacle owes its existence and persistent continuation due
to tense central-state relations. Both law and society are dynamic concepts. In order
to meet the needs and aspirations of the people, law should keep changing with the
change in society. Sometimes due to unforeseen circumstances, the law is not able to
come up to the expectations of the people or simply put up, it means the law falls
short of law. In such cases complete justice is not administered thus raising doubts
in the minds of general public. Here comes into the picture the Supreme Court, the
savior of the law and the people. The Supreme Court of India has an extraordinary
vision with innovative powers to give new interpretations of law in order to meet the
needs and views of today.
II- Supreme Court Guidelines for effective investigations
(A) Mandatory guidelines for effecting an arrest:
The principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Course of delivery of
judgment becomes law of the land by Virtue of Art 141278 of the constitution of
India. Many of these judgments contain comprehensive guidelines given by the
Supreme Court to the Police, prosecution subordinate judiciary, prison authorities
and investigating agencies.
Detailed guidelines have been given by the Supreme Court in respect of
obligations of investigating officers to be followed by them after arrest of an accused

277
Vineet Narain, P. 262.
278
Art 141 of the Constitution of India says The judgement of the Supreme Court will be binding
on all courts in India.
206
person. It was the noted in D.K. Basu Vs State of Westbengal Case279 in which the
supreme court delivered strict guidelines for the investigating authorities. Following
is the background of the case.
D.K. Basu, the Executive chairman of Legal Aid services, West Bengal,
addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India saying that torture and deaths in police
custody are widespread. In order to support his contention, some newspapers reports
were also attached to his letter. The letter was treated as writ application under
Article 32 of the constitution and the case was treated as Public Interest Litigation
(PIL). Basu urged the supreme court to examine the issue in depth and develop
Custody jurisprudence and lay down principles for awarding compensation to the
victims of police atrocities. He also urged to formulate means to ensure
accountability of those responsible for such occurrences. The Supreme Court issued
notices to all State Governments and the Law Commission of India to submit
suggestions on how to combat this evil.
Custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity, the Supreme Court said:
The Court accepted that though the investigating agencies have a difficult task in
light of the deteriorating law and order situation. They have the right to arrest a
criminal and interrogate her/him in the course of an investigation. But at the same
time the law does not permit the use of third degree methods or torture on an
accused person. The court even recognized that the worst violations of human rights
take place during the investigation .The court directed that the guidelines should be
circulated to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of every state
and union territory.
The directives / guidelines, given by the Apex Court in a nutshell put forward
that Article 21 of the Constitution Cannot be denied to convicts, under trials,
detenues and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure
established by law. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman treatment would fall
within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution. Whether it occurs during
investigation, interrogation on otherwise. Transparency of action and accountability
are two possible safeguards which the court insisted upon.
These guidelines are based on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) provisions and are very much a part of regulations laid

279
AIR 1997 SC 610
207
down in police manuals and rule books. The Supreme Court also pointed out that
failure to comply with these guidelines not only renders an officer (investigating
officer) liable for punishment through departmental action but also amounts to
contempt of court.280 The State must ensure that various agencies deployed by it
for combating terrorism, acts within the bounds of law and not become law into
themselves.
In another very important case named Joginder Kumar Vs State of U.P., the
supreme court gave precious directions regarding arrest of the accused. In this case,
Joginder Kumar, a young lawyer aged 28 was taken to an undisclosed location by
the police on the pretext of having some inquiry from him. He was illegally detained
by the U.P. police for five days. A heabeas Corpus writ petition was filed with the
supreme court by his family in order to know about his where about. The Apex
Court issued notices to the State of U.P. and to the SSP to immediately produce
Joginder Kumar and answer why he was detained for five days without a valid
reason also why his detention was not recorded by the police in its diary. The
Supreme Court, rejected the police version that Joginder Kumar was cooperating
with them, out of his own free will and said that there must be reasonable
justification in the opinion of the officer effecting an arrest, that such an arrest is
necessary and justified. Illegal and unnecessary arrest and detention can cause
incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. The Court said,
arrests should not be made, unless they are absolutely necessary and there is no other
way except arresting the accused to ensure his/her presence before the criminal
justice system. Unnecessary and unjustified arrests lead to harassment and loss of
faith in the system. According to the Third Report of the National Police
Commission, nearly 60% arrests made by the police were unnecessary and that such
unjustified police action accounted for 43.2% of the expenditure of the Jails. Section
220 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes a maximum sentence of seven years
on making a corrupt, malicious arrest without recording an arrest.
(B) Mandatory guidelines against Handcuffing
Police officers are vested with the power to restrain a person by handcuffing
him but at the same time, the law restrains the police officers to exercise this power

280
Proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can be started in Any High Court.

208
unnecessarily. Even an under trial prisoner is entitled to minimum freedom of
movement and it cannot be cut down cruelly by application of handcuffs.
The Supreme Court in Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration281, held that
solitary confinement was violative of the right to personal liberty. There is no total
deprivation of a prisoners right of life and liberty. The intent of the remarks in the
above case point out that even an under trial cannot be deprived of the right to free
movement. No unnecessary handcuffs or hoops could take away this right from him.
Going further in the case of Prem Shankar Shukla282, the Apex Court
observed that using handcuffs and felters on prisoners violates the guarantie of basic
human dignity. In this case Prem Shankar Shukla an undertrial prisoner at Tihar
Jain intimated the Supreme Court that despite the Apex Courts directives in Sunil
Batras283 case, that falters/ handcuffs should only used if a person exhibits a
credible tendency for violence or escape they were being forcibly handcuffed when
they were escorted from prison to the courts. The Supreme Court arrested that even
orders from superiors are not a valid justification for handcuffing a person.
Constitutional rights cannot be suspended under the garb of orders issued by a
superior officer. The said case made it crystal clear that the use of handcuffs, chains
or ropes to bind prisoners amounts to inhuman treatment. Handcuffs should not be
used as a matter of routine. It is only under exceptional cases that their use is
allowed and that too with judicial permission on the grounds that the person poses as
a clear and present danger and there are genuine reasons to believe that she/he will
attempt escape.
It was in the case Citizens for Democracy Vs State of Assam that the
Supreme Court observed and held that, as a rule, handcuffs or felters must not be
used on an under trial or on a convicted prisoner whether in jail or when being taken
to court, without authorization of a magistrate. Handcuffing without a magistrates
approval is not permitted, except in rare instances. In such instances, the burden of
proving that the use of handcuffs was warranted lies on the police. If the detaining
authority or escort party fail to satisfy the court about the genuineness of the danger
or threat posed by the person who was handcuffed, they will be liable under law.284

281
AIR 1978 4SCCC 494
282
AIR 1980 SCC 526
283
AIR 1978 SC p 1675
284
Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SCC 494.
209
Escorting authority should record contemporaneously the reasons for handcuffing
under trial prisoners even in extreme cases and intimate the court so that the court
may consider the circumstances and issue necessary directions to the Escorting
party, the open court held in the Sunil Guptas Case.285
(C) Guidelines to investigating agencies for speedy trial of Criminal Cases:
The right to speedy criminal trial is one of the most valuable fundamental
rights guaranteed to a citizen under the constitution, which is integral part of right to
life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21. In Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab, 286 it
was observed:-
The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our
constitution. The right-to- speedy treat begins with the actual restraint imposed by
arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely the stage of
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that
may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission
of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted. In this content, it
may be noted that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is properly reflected in
section 309 of the code of Criminal Procedure.287
In Abdul Rehman Anntulay and others288, a five-judge constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court reiterated the position that a right to speedy trial is implicit in Art
21 of the constitution. Detailed propositions of law on speedy trial were also laid
down in this case. The court observed that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C.) where consistent with the right to speedy trial and if followed in
letter and sprit, there would not be any grievance but, unfortunately, these provisions
are honoured more in breach than in compliance. The Supreme Court supplemented
the propositions laid down by the constitution Bench in Antulays Case 289 with the
following directions:
(1) In cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a
period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the
court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two
285
Sunil Gupta Vs State of M.P. (1990) S.C.C. (Crl) P. 440.
286
AIR 1994 3SCC 569.
287
Sec 309 Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
288
Abdul Rehman Antuloy & ors Vs R.S. Nayak & another 1992 (1) SCC 225.
289
A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC, P. 225.
210
 years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges
framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not, within
the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for
the trial of the case.
(2) In such cases as mentioned above, if the accused has been in jail for a period
of not less than one half of the maximum period of punishment prescribed
for the offence, the trial court shall release the accused on bail forthwith on
such conditions as it deems fit:
(3) If the offence under trial is punishable with imprisonment for a period
exceeding 7 years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close
the prosecution evidence on completion of three years from the date of
recording the pleas of the accused on the charge framed, whether the
prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period and
the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the
case, unless for very exceptional reasons to be recorded and in the interest of
justice, the court considers it necessary to grant further time to the
prosecution to adduce evidence beyond the aforesaid time limit;
(4) But if the inability for completing the prosecution within the aforesaid period
is attributable to the conduct of the accused in protracting the trial, no court
is obliged to close the prosecution evidence within the aforesaid period in
any of the cases covered by clauses (i) to (iii);
(5) Whether the trial has been stayed by orders of court or by operation of law
such time during which the stay was in force shall be excluded from the
aforesaid period for closing prosecution evidence.
The Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgments in Hussainara Khatoon
Vs State of Bihar explicitly held speedy trial as a part of Art 21 of the constitution
guarantying Right of Life and Liberty. The matter was taken up by the Supreme
Court when the Indian Express News Paper carried a news story about the state of
under-trail prisoners in Bihar, some of them were in a jail for as many as five, seven
or nine years and few of them for even more than 10 years without their trials having
begun. Justice P.N .Bhagwati observed:-
There is also one other infirmity of the legal and judicial system which is
responsible for this gross devils of justice to the under trial prisoners and that is the

211
notorious delay in disposal of cases. It is a bad reflection on the legal and judicial
system that the trial of an accused should not even commence for a long number of
years. Even a delay of one year in the commencement of the trial is bad enough;
how much worse it could be when the delay is as long as 3 or 5 or 7 or even 10
years. Speedy trial is the essence of Criminal Justice and there can be no doubt that
delay in trial by itself constituted denial of justice.
Although speedy trial is not enshrined as a fundamental right, but it is
implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of constitution. If a person is
deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair and just,
such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21. No
procedure which does not ensure a reasonable quick trial can be regarded as
reasonable fair or just and thus tit would fall out of the ambit of Art 21.
It was held in the case that if the investigation is unduly delayed, trial would
automatically be delayed violating Article 21 and such delayed investigations are
liable to be quashed by the Courts and accused is entitled to be set free if the accused
(undertrial) has been in jail for a period longer than maximum term for which he
could have been sentenced, if convicted.

(D) Guidelines to investigating agencies for insulating them from extraneous

influences.
The most critical issue facing law enforcement today is the potential loss of
public trust in law enforcement organizations. High profile cases of corruption abuse
of power and the use of excessive force are some causes of the above said issue.
Law enforcement officers290 misconduct, particularly the abuse of power, has a
tendency to encode the trust people have in the enforcement organizations. The
question arises as to what are the reasons for such existing problems of corruption
misconduct and abuse of power? There is no single reason why officers are engaged
in this type of behavior?
The foremost reason for such misconduct, corruption and abuse of power is
political influence. History is the witness that the most controversial cases dealt in
the Indian Country are the possible outcomes of political influence. Somewhere or
the other, the hand of high profile people can be seen in tampering with the case

290
Here the term law enforcement officer refers to an investigating officer.
212
related matters. Whether they are involved in these cases themselves, or their
children, relatives or counterparts, influence does not go missing. The
investigating officers are the most Vulnearble entity in the eyes of such political
leaders. When a high profile person influences an enforcement officer with this
power and position, it leads to corruption among the officers. Consequently the need
to please the high profile person makes the enforcement officer abuse his power and
position and follow the theme of misconduct. The extraneous influence of political
people demoralize the investigating agencies and caring police officials and the
honest efforts on the part of such investigating agencies / officers go in vain.
The Supreme Court in its move to refine the justice system has passed
various verdicts and has framed the scheme for insulting them (investigating
agencies) from extraneous influences. The Directions give by the Supreme Court in
Vineet Narains Case291 are worth discussion in this connection. The directions
given by the Supreme Court in this case are mainly based on its observation in the
matter of prevailing corruption in public life upon which the Apex Court remarked
that if such corruption is permitted to continue unchecked it will have the deleterious
effect of eroding the Indian polity. The Supreme Court delivered a number of
guidelines, some of which concerning the C.B.I. are as following:
(i) The Central Vigilance Commission shall be given statutory status.
(ii) The CVC shall be entrusted with the responsibility of exercising
superintendence over CBIs functioning.
(iii) Selection for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner shall be made by a
Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Home Minister and Leader of
the Opposition from a panel of outstanding civil servants with impeccable
integrity, to be furnished by the Cabinet Secretariat. The appointment shall
be made by the President.
(iv) Appointment to the post of Director, CBI shall be made by the appointments
committee of the Cabinet on the basis of recommendations made by a
Committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner with the Home
Secretary and Secretary (Personnel) as members.
(v) The Director, CBI shall have a minimum tenure of two years, regardless of
the date of his superannuation.

291
Vineet Narain Vs Union of India, 1998(1) Crimes, P. 12 (S.C.)
213
(vi) Selection / Extension / Premature Repatriation of officers up to the level of
Jt. Director shall be decided by a board consisting of the Central Vigilance
Commissioner, Home Secretary and Secretary (Personnel).
(vii) The Central Government shall take all measures necessary to ensure that the
CBI functions efficiently and is viewed as a non-partisan agency.
(viii) A document on CBIs functioning should be published within 3 months to
provide the general public with a feedback on investigations and information
for redress of genuine grievances.
The other important directions by the Supreme Court include the following:
(ix) The Director, Enforcement Directorate under Ministry of Finance shall a
minimum tenure of two years. He shall be appointed by the Appointments
Committee of the Cabinet on the basis of recommendations made by a
committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner, with the Home
Secretary, Secretary (Personnel) and Revenue Secretary as members.
(x) A Nodal agency headed by the Home Secretary with member (investigation),
the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Director General, Revenue Intelligence,
Director Enforcement and Director, CBI as members shall be constituted for
coordinated action in cases having politico-bureaucratic criminal news.
The agencies shall meet at least once every month and its functioning should
be watched for one year so as to improve it on the basis of experience gained
during the period.
(xi) Steps should be taken immediately for constitution of an able and impartial
agency to perform functions akin to those of the Directorate of Prosecutions
in United Kingdom. Once this is done, the task of supervising prosecutions
launched by CBI/Enforcement Directorate shall be entrusted to it.
(xii) A panel of competent lawyers of impeccable regulation shall be prepared and
utilized to prosecute important cases. The advice of a lawyer from this panel
should taken during investigations also.
(xiii) The Supreme Court has observed that there is urgent need for the State
Governments to setup credible mechanism for selection of the police chief in
the states. The Supreme Court has asked the Central Government to pursue
the matter with the State Governments and ensure that a similar mechanism
as suggested in the judgement, be set up in each State for selection /

214
 appointment, tenure, transfer and positioning of all police officers of the rank
of Superintendent of Police and above. Continuing its move towards
insulating of Investigating agencies in proper discharging of their functions,
the Apex court laid down principles upon which police custody may be
justified during further investigation. In Dawood Ibrahims Case 292 which is
well known for a series of Bomb explosions on 12-03-1993 which took place
in and around the city of Bombay resulting in the death of 257 persons,
injuries to 713 persons and damage to property of worth Rs. 27 crores. In this
connection 27 separate criminal cases were registered and on completion of
investigation, the police submitted a composite charge sheet against 198
accused persons including 45 absconders under various sections of Indian
Reveal Code, TADA, Arms Act and Explosure Substances Act.
Subsequently on request of both Central and State Government of
Maharashtra, C.B.I. took up further investigation of the cases.
Resultantly C.B.I. prayed for issuance of non bailable warrant of
arrest against some of the accused persons, who were absconding and
evading arrest. The designated court rejected the application holding that
after taking cognizance on the police report, the court can issue process to
the accused person to compel them to face the trial, but no such process can
be issued by the court in aid of investigation under section 73293 of Cr.P.C.
The C.B.I. preferred appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the
designated court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that Sec. 309 of Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) does not stand in the way of the court, which has taken
cognizance of an offence, to authorize the detention of a person, who is subsequently
brought before it by the police under arrest during further investigation, in police
custody in exercise of its discretionary power under section 167 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
In another case State of M.P. Vs S.B. Johari and others 294, the apex court
provided more wings to the Investigating agencies in the matter of framing of

292
C.B.I. Vs Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar 1997, S.C.C. (Crl) P: 636
293
Sec 83- Warrant may be directed to any person Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) 1973
294
2000, S.C.C. (Crl) P. 311
215
charges against the accused and defined the scope of evaluation of evidence by the
court at the stage of framing of charges against the accused persons.
It was held in the judgement that at the stage of framing the charge, the court
was illegal and erroneous and it appeared as if the court was deciding the case as to
whether the accused were guilty or not. In most of the cases it was only from the
available circumstantial evidence that an influence of conspiracy was to be drawn.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court instead of considering the prima
facie case, appreciated and weighed the material on record for coming to the
conclusion that charge against the respondents could not have been framed. It is a
settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court was
not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials
produced were sufficient or not for convicting the accused. Therefore, the Supreme
Court held that there was no justifiable reason for the High Court to quash the
charge framed by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 22.09.2006,
relying on past reports, said that many of the deficiencies in the functioning of the
police had arisen largely due to an overdose of unhealthy and petty political
interference295 and concluded that it was important to insulate the police
(investigating agencies) from political interference. Almost all state police
commissions and the National Police Commissions have found misuse by politicians
for partisan ends.296 Police officers (investigating agencies) feel compelled to
comply with illegitimate political directives because they know that disobedience
might lead to their transfer to a different post. Elimination of illegitimate political
control has been attempted, for example in the State of Kerela, Corruption did not
decrease. This point was made in the roundtable, Conference on police reform in
2003.
In Kerela, where this simple theory has been enacted as informal policy, the
states police has indeed secured some freedom from the blight of unlawful political
control. However, according to some, this has been, to some extent, a mined
blessing. Faceless middlemen have replaced the corrupt politicians in debasing

295
The Supreme Court in its judgement of 31.12.2006 in Write Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996.
296
Report of the Roundtable Conference on Police Reforms (26-27 June, 2003 (HRI), P.5. available
at HTTP;/www.hummanrights initiative. Org/publications/police/rte-report-trinandrum.pdf. Last
visited on 20th May, 2011.
216
policing. Insulation from illegitimate political control has not resulted in reducing
police corruption. In fact, corruption at the police station level is alleged to have
increased. At least when politicians misbehave as public figures, they can be forced
to answer to the media and eventually to the public. The faceless middle man, who is
often more dangerous than a politician, can obstruct democratic policing with no
thought to his accountability or a potential media backlash.297
It is apparent that a mere disassociation of investigating agencies from
political powers is insufficient to eliminate corruption. In fact, it will hold potential
to provide even less accountability than is found at present. Political interference can
not be eliminated by simply introducing an institutional separation. The
investigating agencies can be autonomous only after and not before, they have
proven themselves to be an organization subject to the Rule of Law.
(E) Supreme Court on Custodial interrogation
The Supreme Court is heavily favoured towards custodial interrogation of
highly influential political people. A historic direction was given by it in the case of
Anil Sharma.298 Anil Sharma, a member of Legislative Assembly of Himachal
Pradesh, was a former Minister in Himachal Pradesh Government for about three
years. His father, Sukh Ram was Union Minister for Tele Communications. Anil
Sharma was charged under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
with the allegation that he had acquired wealth to the tune of Rs. 16,5000-in excess
of his known sources of income. While the Central Bureau of Investigation was
investigating the case, Anil Sharma got anticipatory bail from High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, but the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition cancelled the
same. The Supreme Court held that the principal bail not jail is applicable only for
considering the post-arrest bail of the accused involved in a crime. By cancelling the
order of anticipatory bail granted to Anil Sharma by Himachal Pradesh High Court,
the Supreme Court agreed with the submission of the Central Bureau of
Investigation that Custodial Interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented
than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favaourable order under
section 438 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)299
In this case the Apex Court held:-

297
See Police Peform, Roundtable
298
CBI Vs Anil Sharma J.T. 1997 (7) S.C. p. 651.
299
Sec. 438-Anticipatory Bail
217
Effective interrogation of suspected persons is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring many useful informations and materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows
that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time of
interrogation.
Though the argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the
danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be
countenanced, for such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal
cases.
The court has to presume that responsible investigating officers would
conduct themselves in a responsible manner and would not subject the arrested
person to third degree methods.
In the case Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Punjab300 the accused police
officers detained the deceased person for interrogation on the charges of smuggled
narcotics. During the interrogation he was beaten and tortured to such an extent that
he died and was thrown into a river and the same could not be recovered during
investigation. The wife of the deceased gave a report to him, on the basis of which
the S.P. Amritsar City, took up the investigation and recorded the statement of the
witnesses. He visited the scene of occurrence and found the walls of interrogation
room stained with blood. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was
filed. The trial; court convicted the accused person under section 365 Indian Penal
Code. The High Court, however took a different view and reached the conclusion
that when once it is proved that the injured witnesses along with the deceased were
kidnapped, confined and beaten up and later if dead body was not traced, the only
inference that can be drawn is that the accused has caused the death of the deceased.
The Criminals appealed against this judgment and the Supreme Court came to a
conclusion and held that although the police officer/ investigating officer has the
right to interrogate or arrest any suspect on credible information yet that does not
mean that they can inflict injuries during interrogation. Torturing and using third
degree methods are barbaric and contrary to law. The investigating officers must
adopt scientific methods than resorting to physical torture. The police officers who

300
(1992) 3 SCC 249
218
have to provide security and protection to the citizens indulge in such methods
which are creating a sense of insecurity in the minds of the citizens.
In another case named
Ashok Hussain Allah Detha, alias Siddique and another Vs Assistant
Collection Customs (P) Bombay and another. The court said, the investigating
officers may lawfully detain a suspect for an offence but detention in custody for
interrogation is not authorized by law. The investigating officers may detain for an
offence only. There is no authority in the investigating officers to detain a person for
the purpose of interrogation or helping them in enquiry.
In cases under the N.D.P.S. Act and Customs Act, the prosecution is, no
doubt, entitled to rely upon the statements of the accused during investigation. But
what the investigating officers do, in such cases is to procure statements, by assault,
illegal detention and fear of continued detention. They, then present these documents
as statements. The law does not permit to do so. The manipulation and abuse of
the legislative sanction for the use of statements of the accused requires to be
censured in the strongest terms.
(F) Supreme Court, on Investigating officers fabricating records in Judicial
Proceedings.
The Criminals are roaming Scott-free in society due to mischiefs played by
the executive, legislature or the judiciary. Each of them have played their part in
protecting such criminals. Many a times it is the law enforcement officers
themselves responsible for letting them go, by the judiciary, on producing and
fabricating false evidences in support of them. The Supreme Court has taken serious
note of the mal-practices adopted by the police officials by way of making false
statement in Judicial proceedings, misleading the court by false report, false affidavit
in court and for assault on Judicial officers etc. A writ petition under Article 32 was
filed in the Supreme Court in Afzals Case for habeaus corpus of two minor boys.
The brief facts of the case are that the S.H.O. Ambala cantonment registered a
criminal case with Government Railway Police, Faridabad against one Rahim Khan
on the allegation of forgery of Railway receipts, cheating and misappropriation. In
connection with this case a police-party headed by Ishaq Ahmed, Inspector, CIA,
G.R.P. Amabala had gone to Agra to apprehend Rahim Khan, who was not
available. It was alleged that the Investigating team abducted two minor boys Afzal,

219
son of Rahim Khan and Habib, son of Ahmad and kept them in wronglful
confinement at different places. The Supreme Court, on a writ petition filed before it
under Article 32 as aforesaid, directed the Director General of Police, Haryana to
enquire into the matter and to submit report before the court within 6 days. The
order of the Supreme Court was duly communicated to the D.G.P. Haryana on
02.11.1993. An affidavit was filed in this case by M.S. Ahlawat, Superintendent of
Police, who denied the involvement of police officers in wrongful and illegal
confinement of two minor boys. But the Surpeme Court was not satisfied with the
affidavit submitted by M.S. Ahlawat, rather the District & Sessions judge of
Faridabad was directed to make an enquiry and to submit a report within 6 weeks
from the date of receipt of the order. The District Judge examined the witnesses,
recorded their statements and submitted his report to the Apex Court, but the Apex
Court was not again satisfied with this enquiry.
Ultimately, the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation was entrusted
with the task of enquiry, who submitted the report to the Apex Court after enquiring
into the matter. On 30.10.1993, Mr. Ahlawat filed another affidavit denying
involvement of the police officials in taking two minor boys in wrongful
confinement.
This statement of M.S. Ahlawat was proved to be false from the enquiries
conducted by D.G.P, Haryana, District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad and also
Central Bureau of Investigations enquiry.
The Supreme Court came to a conclusion that M.S. Ahlawat, S.P. of Police
made a false statement before the supreme court at different stages of the Judicial
proceedings and that Mr. Ahlawat had given instructions to his subordinate Ishwar
Singh to direct H.C. Krishan Kumar to forge his signature on the carbon copy of the
affidavit to be filed before the Supreme Court, presumably because he did not want
to commit himself to the false version regarding illegal custody and wrongful
confinement of two minor boys by signing on the affidavit filed before the supreme
court. Also, the court said that all the erring officers have interfered with the due
cause of administration of Justice. Accordingly the Ape Court invoked the power of
contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution and convicted all the erring police
officers sentencing them to undergo different imprisonments. For one month and to
pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for actively abating the commission of assault on a Chief

220
Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad, in the State of Gujrat. The incident which prompted the
senior Police Officer to Commit such irresponsible behavior, that too against a
Judicial Officer; was that the CJM Nadiad passed structures and made complaint
against local police for not cooperating with the court in effecting source of
summons, execution of warrants and other processes of the court. On Sep 25th, 1989
C.J.M was invited to visit the police station by the Police Inspector. The C.J.M.
visited the police station at 8.40 P.M. on the same day, where he was forced to
consume liquor and on refusal he was assaulted physically, one panchnama was
prepared showing the drunken state of Chief Judicial Magistrate. He was tied with a
rope and sent to Local Hospital for medical examination. He has not allowed to
contact the District Judge over telephone in the hospital. Two cases were registered
against him. First under the Bombay Prohibition Act and the other under section
S32/506 I.P.C., so that the CJM may not be released on bail. The District
Superintendent of Police who was aware of the incident did not take any action
against the police officials involved in the incident. The matter was bought to the
notice of the Apex Court, under the Article 32 of the constitution and upon this, one
sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court was appointed as commissioner to make
enquiry and submit its report before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held in this case as a matter of guidelines to the
investigating agencies that a police officer cannot arrest a Judicial officer in
connection with a criminal case without intimation to his higher authority.
Again on the same lines in the case of Dhananjay301, an I.P.s. Officer of 1982
batch was sentenced to Jail by the Supreme Court on a writ application giving rise to
contempt proceedings. In this case the Supreme Court passed strict structures against
Home Secretary, Haryana and D.G.P. Haryana for not responding to the first notice
issued to them by the Supreme Court and for not fulfilling their constitutional
obligation to assist the Supreme Court under Article 144302 of the constitution. The
Apex Court condemned the police officers who acted in the most high handed
manner to favour one party in a criminal case and for subjecting two innocent people
to harassment and illegal detention in the Police station. The Apex held that the three
police officers, including S.S.P. Hissar committed grave contempt of court by not

301
Art 144- of Indian Constitution.
302
Dhanjay Vs State of Haryana AIR 1995, S.C. P. 1795.
221
only interfering with the course of justice, but also making calculated and deliberate
attempt to obstruct the administration of justice by filing false affidavit in the Apex
Court. Another case which shows the high handedness of police brutalities and
contempt of court proceedings in order to attain the illegal motives is the Haila
Kandi Bar Associations Case.303 A resolution was passed by the Bar Association
condemning the brutal assault on an under-trial prisoner, Nurul Haque by Police.
The Supreme Court treated the same as writ petition under Article 32 of the
constitution. A.K. Sinha Casshyap, the Superintendent of Police, Hailkandi,
submitted a report about death of Nurul Haque Supported by an affidavit. The report
indicated that Nurul Haque, a Veteran dacoit, was beaten up by police before he was
apprehended by the police. The report further revealed that he was neither tortured
in police custody, nor died in police lock up. The post mortem report of the death of
Nurul Haque indicated Myocardial infraction with heart failure. The Honble
Supreme Court was not satisfied by the above report of the Superintendent of Police
and asked the Central Bureau of Investigation was asked to make an enquiry into the
matter and submit a report to it. The Central Bureau of Investigation report indicated
Shri A.K. Sinha Casshyap, S.P. Hailakandi for his disdainful role in preparing false
and fabricated report in order to cover up the guilt of his subordinates. The report
also pointed out that Nurul Haque was 35 years aged, of sound health, when he was
overpowered by Sub-Indspector Abdul Hye Choudhary and party on 09.03.1993,
There was no record of giving medical treatment to Nurul Haque on 09.03.1993 and
the brother, mother and wife were not allowed to meet him in the lock up on
10.03.1993. He was even not produced before the Magistrate on 10.03.1993. He was
taken to Hailakandi Civil Hospital for treatment but was not X-rayed, even after the
advice of medical officer. He was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hailakandi without any medical treatment being given to him. Nurul Haque
Collapsed on 13-02-1993 at 5.2 A.M.
The Police authority registered a case under section 302 Indian Penal Code
in respect of death of Nurul Haque against unknown members of the public on the
basis of complaint filed by SI Abdul Hye Choudhary. The wife of the deceased
(Nurul Haque) refused to take the dead body and filed an application to Chief
Judicial Magistrate for further post mortem of the dead body at Silchar Medical

303
Secretary, Haila Kandi Bar Associations Vs State of Assam, AIR 1996, S.C. P. 1925.
222
College, which was allowed. The Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi could not
produce any evidence before the Central Bureau of Investigation to substantiate his
allegation that Nurul Haque was a dacoit. Neither he was charge sheeted nor any
FIR of the case of dacoity was mentioned. The S.P. could not give any evidence to
CBI to substantiate the fact of giving any medical treatment to Nurul Haque. No
explanation was given by SP as to why a criminal case against unknown miscreants
was not started on 09-03-1993, when alleged attack on Nurul took place. According
to C.B.I. Nurul took place. According to C.B.I Nurul Haque was illegally detained in
police custody till 11-03-1993 and the cause of his death was brutal physical torture
while he was in police custody. The Supreme Court considered the report of CBI
and heard Shri A.K. Sinha Casshyap and held that Shri A.K. Sinha Casshyap,
Hailakandi submitted a false and fabricated report supported by false affidavit in
order to mislead the court and also with an intention to cover up the misdeeds of his
subordinates. The C.B.I report revealed that the death of Nurul Haque was at the
hands of the police. Shri A.K. Sinha Casshyap, tendered an apology only when his
report was found to be false and misleading, thus he was held guilty of committing
contempt under article 129 of the Constitution read with section 12 of the contempt
of court Act 1971 and sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a three
months.
(G) Supreme Court on High Handedness of Investigating Officers
High Handedness of investigating officers has been on the agenda of
legislative and judicial authorities since a long time. Many new laws have been
enacted in order to suppress this evil but all in vain. Even the apex court has kept a
niggle view on the corrupt practice of investigating agencies. Custodial torture,
deaths, fake encounters; etc. are included in the hit list of investigating agencies.
Here the term used investigating agencies is being used in a wider sense including
police officials. Not only this, limits of high handedness of investigating officials is
very lengthy. Officials are involved in serious crimes such as abductions rape,
molestation, to name a few. In the following case Inder Singh Vs State of
Punjab304, a senior police officer and his police party was allegedly involved in
abduction of seven persons. On an enquiry conducted by the D.I.G. (Crime), the
allegations were found to be true. He even recommended for the registration of a

304
AIR, 1995, S.C. P. 312.
223
case against the police officials under section 364 of Indian Penal Code, but no case
was registered. Ultimately the Apex Court interfered in the allegations and directed
the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation to make an enquiry into the matter as
no disciplinary action was taken against the delinquent Police Officers.
In another case named Dhanajay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana,305 the
Supreme Court pulled up Senior Police offices for their high handedness and
favouritism coupled with swearing false affidavit. The Haryana Police illegally
detained one taxi driver alongwith one Mr. Dhananjay Sharma an employee with a
business firm which had a civil dispute with the company owned by Sh. Anoop
Bishnoi, son-in-law of Mr. Bhajan Lal, the then Chief Minister of the State of
Haryana. The Senior Police officers favoured the son-in-law of the Chief Minister
and swore false affidavit before the Supreme Court in connection with writ of
habeas-corpus. On this the Apex court by invoking its contempt jurisdiction
sentenced Sh. Anil Daura 1982 batch I.P.S., S.S.P. of Hissar with imprisonment for
two months and Sh. Shyam Lal Goyal, I.P.S., Additional S.P. of Hissar and
Rajender Singh Yadav, S.H.O., Sadar Police Station, Hissar to undergo
imprisonment for three months in the same contempt proceedings. The Supreme
Court observed and held that the prime duties and functions of the members of the
police force is to prevent and detect crime, take such measures to ensure the safety
of the life, property and liberty of the citizens and it was only for this object for
which the police force was conceived.
In its concern over increasing instances of custodial violence, torture, deaths,
fake encounters etc the Supreme Court has repeatedly been giving its directions to
the Investigating agencies. In one of such cases306 the Supreme Court has laid down
that the exaggerated adherence to an insistence upon the establishment of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, by the prosecution that too by ignoring the ground
realities, the fact situations and the peculiar circumstances of a particular case, often
results in miscarriage of Justice and makes the Justice delivery system suspect.
Such unrealistic approach of courts give encouragement to tortures in police
custody. It is because of the reason that it re-enforces the belief in the mind of police
that no harm would come to them if an odd prisoner dies in the lockup because there

305
AIR 1995, S.C. P. 1795
306
State of M.P. Vs. Shyam Sunder Trivedi and others, 1995, S.C.C. (Crl) P. 715.
224
would hardly be any evidence available to the prosecution to directly implicate them
with the torture. The Apex court also held that torture in police custody Flaunts the
basic rights of the citizens recognized by the Indian constitution and is posing as a
serious threat to an orderly civilized society. The Law Commission of India, in its
113th report recommended an amendment to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to
provide that in the prosecution of a police officer for causing custodial violence to
any person, if there is evidence that the injury was caused to the person in Police
Custody, the Court may presume that injury was caused by the Police Officer
having the custody of that person, unless the Police Officer proves to the contrary.
Brijala Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar was a case where the Supreme Court held
that the post-mortem report as well as oral evidence unequivocally indicates that
the police party resorted to firing at the three deceased persons on a very close
range.
When the police officers left the police station with arms in their hand and
returned to the police station with three dead bodies it was for them to explain, under
what circumstances, the three people were killed. The defence of firing in self
defence is nullified because the police party did not receive any injury and the police
vehicle was also not damaged at all. The amazing part of this incident was that the
entry was made in the Station House Diary as an encounter. Criminal Investigation
Department, Patna took up the case for investigation. Chargesheet was submitted
after the investigation against five police officers including S.H.O. for committing
offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. The police officers were convicted and
sentenced to hang till death by the Session Judge, Gaya. On appeal, the High Court
upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence of the constables to the life
imprisonment on the ground that they had to open fire under instruction of the
S.H.O. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the Conviction of all accused Police
Officers was still upheld but the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
Whether, it is a police officer or an officer of the Central Bureau of
Investigation or any officer of special investigating agency, he should be not spared
at the cost of the justice. Upholding and maintaining the Rule of Law should be the
foremost priority of the Supreme Court un awarding sentences.

225
 It was in Jaspal Singhs Case307 the Supreme Court directed the Central
Bureau of Investigation to produce detenu Satish before the court in connection with
a case filed by one Jaspal Singh against the U.P. State. The detenu Satish was beaten
up and kicked by the constables of Central Bureau of Investigation in the precincts
of the Supreme Court. The two Inspectors who were entrusted with the duty of
production of Satish, allowed this gruesome act to happen before them. Sh. Rajdip
S.P. Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) admitted the occurrence and the
omissions on his part to control the conduct of the constabulary. The detenu was
examined by the Doctor of Supreme Court Infirmary. The Supreme Court observed
that the incident is indeed symptomatic of the degeneration in the respect for law,
human dignity and human rights by the police. Accordingly, a strong reprimand was
administered to Sh. Rajdeep Singh S.P., Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.)
and cautioned him to conduct properly in relation to courts in future. The Apex
Court very rightly punished the police officers by invoking contempt jurisdiction.
In a number of cases308 the Supreme Court of India has seriously taken the
growing incidents of custodial crimes and thus delivered a number of guidelines
supplementing the already existing plethora of laws. In its active movement against
inhuman practices of police, the Supreme Curt Strike heavily upon police and
remarked that
Nothing is more cowardly and unconceivable than a person in police . In
aid and support of its movement initiated by Honble Sureme Court, the National
Human Rights Commission has also been the protagonist of the protection of most
basic fundamental (human) rights of the persons resident in the country.
Several directions have been issued to all the States and District
administrations asking for reports on matters relating to custodial crimes within 24
hours of occurrence.
The Apex Court has actively interfered into every incident of malpractice
and atrocities committed by Special Investigating Agencies and Police in particular.
The Supreme Court has made its all out efforts to combat this menace, clouded upon
the face of the largest democracy. The Apex Court started its movement through

307
Jaspal Singh Vs State of U.P. A.I.R. 1995 S.C.C. (Crl) P. 832.
308
Khatru Vs. St of Bihar (1981), S.C.C. P. 623. Mrs. Cardino & Ohters V. V.O.I. 1990 ACJ P. 804
SAHELI v. Commissioner of Police , Delhi A.I.R. 1990 S.C., p. 415
226
Sunil Batras Case309 Wherein it embarked upon ensuring minimum freedom of
movement under Article 19 of the Constitution notwithstanding that a person may
happen to be an under trial prisoner, except the restrictions put under a valid law.
Again on the historic Pre Shankar Shuklas case310 it laid down detailed guidelines
in respect of hand cuffing of prisoners. The Supreme Court in continuation of its
move towards efficient and effective enforcement of law and keeping in view one of
the highest notions of law Delay defeats the Justice struck heavily upon the
criminal cases, the adjudication of which have been found delayed either for want of
completion of timely investigation or for want of trial. To overcome such unhealthy
situation, the Apex Court delivered detailed guidelines for ensuring speedy disposal
of Criminal Cases, firstly in A.R. Antulays Case311 and finally elaborated in Rajdeo
Sharma State of Bihar312 case and left no scope for delay tactics.
Even the International Community has also been expressing its concern over
increasing phenomena of custodial crimes since long.
Article V of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that No one
shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
On the front of safeguarding the Valuable fundamental and legal rights of the
citizens against unjustified arrest and detention, the Apex Court has taken serious
note of the increasing instances of such grave violations of law. Firstly Joginder
Kumars Case313 and then in D.K. Basus Case, the Supreme Court has made
detailed guidelines to ensure protection against unfair, illegal and unjust practice of
assault, beating and cruel torture upon under trials by the investigating agencies. In
several cases314, the supreme court has taken serious note of the increasing instances
of filing of false affidavit or making false statement in judicial proceedings etc. On
behalf of police officials or other officials of investigating agencies. In some cases
the Apex Court did not hesitate in invoking the power of contempt under Article 129
of the Constitution and Convicted the erring officials and passed the appropriate
sentences upon them. In its move towards ensuring the secure living for the people,
309
AIR 1978 S.C. P. 1675
310
AIR 1980, S.C. P. 1535
311
(1992), I.S.C.C., P. 225
312
1998(4), Crimes, p. 53(S.C.)
313
Joginder Kumars Vs State of U.P. AIR 1994, S.C. p. 1349.
314
Afzal Vs State of Haryana (1996) SCC (Cr) p. 424, Secretary, Hailakandi Br Association Vs State
of Assam 1996 SCC (Cr) P. 921, Dhananjay Sharma Vs State of Haryana, AIR 1995 , S.C. 1795.
227
the Apex Court has issued a number of guidelines in cases involving false
encounters, illegal abduction and custodial violence by officials of Investigating
agencies.
The Supreme Courts move towards ensuring a secure living for the citizens
didnt stop merely by issuing guidelines and passing sentences in some cases, rather
it has evolved a new mechanism of victim compensation for the effective
implementation of the its directions issued from time to time. This new concept of
victim compensation has been developed by the Supreme Court through various
pronouncements.315 of awarding compensation to victims. Apart from condemning
the investigating agencies for their faulty mode of functioning in Clear-cut disregard
of established principles of law, the Apex Court has also taken into consideration
various problems faced by the dedicated personnel of investigating agencies in their
continuous efforts towards effective enforcement of law for an efficient and smooth
running of criminal justice administration.
In Vineet Narains Case316, the Apex court framed a detailed scheme for
insulating investigation agencies from extraneous influences. Again in the case State
of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and others317 evaluation of evidence by the court at the stage
of framing of charges against the accused persons.
A perusal of Apex Courts verdicts make it crystal clear that the Special
investigating agencies owe a debt to the higher judiciary and to the Supreme Court
of India in particular for their valuable contribution in bridging the gap between law
and justice.

315
Crudalure M.J. Chiran V.O.I. 1995 SSC (Cr.) P. 925.
Delhi Domestic Working Women s Forum V. U.O.I. 1995 (1) SSC P. 14.
Bhim Singh Vs. State of J & K, AIR 1986 (S.C.) P. 494.
Smt. Nilabati Bahera Vs. St. of Orisa AIR 1993 SC P. 1960.
316
1998(1) Crimes, P. 12 (S.C.)
317
2000, S.C.C. (Crl). P. 311.
228
(H) Supreme Court Guidelines on Separation of Investigation from law and
order Police
The Supreme Court judgement seeks to enhance police performance by
directing separation of investigation from law and order functions of the police in
turns and urban areas to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and
improved rapport with the people. The court has ordered a gradual implementation
of this separation, starting with towns and urban areas with a population of one
million or more.
The Supreme Court directive is as follows:
The investigating police shall be separated from the law and order police to ensure
speedier with the people. It must, however, be ensured that there is full coordination
between the two wings. The separation, to start with, may be effected in towns/urban
areas which have a population of ten lakhs or more and gradually extended to
smaller towns/urban areas also.
Both investigation and law and order are vital and specific police functions,
which must be streamlined separately to run concurrently. At present, it often
happens that investigations are stalled if there is a pressing law and order situation,
or investigations divert officers attention from law and order concerns. The
judgement does not specify how the separation should take place in practice but only
specifies that there must be full coordination between the two wings of the police.
The Model Police Act provides a useful template in this regard. It provides a
workable model to separate the two wings without affective the chain of command.
It also seeks to enhance the efficiency of the investigation wing by providing for
adequate scientific support to investigations, forensic sciences and qualified and
properly trained manpower. The Model Police Act sets out the following system.318
At the police station level
Creation of a Special Crime Investigation Unit headed by an officer not
below the rank of Sub-Inspector of police and comprising an appropriate.

318
See Chapter X: Effective Crime Investigation, Including use of Science and Technology in
Investigation pages 67-70.
229
(III) Principals on the Effective Investigations
Recommended by General Assembly resolution 55/89 of 4 December
319
2000 :

1- The purposes of effective investigation and documentation of torture and

other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment (hereinafter
torture or other ill-treatment) include the following:
(a) Clarification of the facts and establishment and acknowledgement of
individual and State responsibility for victims and their families;
(b) Identification of measures needed to prevent recurrence;
(c) Facilitation of prosecution and / or, as appropriate, disciplinary
sanctions for those indicated by the investigation as being responsible
and demonstration of the need for full reparation and redress from the
State, including fair and adequate financial compensation and
provision of the means for medical care and rehabilitation.
2- States shall ensure that complaints and reports of torture or ill-treatment
are promptly and effectively investigated. Even in the absence of an
express complaint, an investigation shall be undertaken if there are other
indications that torture or ill-treatment might have occurred. The
investigators, who shall be independent of the suspected perpetrators and
the agency they serve, shall be competent and impartial. They shall have
access to, or be empowered to commission investigations by, impartial
medical or other experts. The methods used to carry out such
investigations shall meet the highest professional standards and the
findings shall be made public.
3- (a) The investigative authority shall have the power and obligation to
obtain all the information necessary to the inquiry. The person
conducting the investigation shall have at their disposal all the necessary
budgetary and technical resources for effective investigation. They shall
also have the authority to oblige all those acting in an official capacity
allegedly involved in torture or ill-treatment to appear and testify. The

319
In resolution 55/89, paragraph 3, the General Assembly drew the attention of Governments to the
Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment annexed to the resolution and strongly encouraged them to
reflect upon the Principles as a useful tool in efforts to combat torture.
230
 same shall apply to any witness. To this end, the investigative authority
shall be entitled to issue summonses to witnesses, including any officials
allegedly involved, and to demand the production of evidence.
(b) Alleged victims of torture or ill-treatment, witnesses, those
conducting the investigation and their families shall be protected from
violence, threats of violence or any other form of intimidation that may
arise pursuant to the investigation. Those potentially implicated in torture
or ill-treatment shall be removed from any position of control or power,
whether direct or indirect, over complainants, witnesses and their
families, a well as those conducting the investigation.
4 Alleged victims of torture or ill-treatment and their legal representatives shall
be informed of, and have access to, any hearing, as well as to all information
relevant to the investigation, and shall be entitled to present other evidence.
5 (a) In cases in which the established investigative procedures are inadequate
because of insufficient expertise or suspected bias, or because of the apparent
existence of a pattern of cause or for other substantial reasons, States shall
ensure that investigations are undertaken through an independent
commission of inquiry or similar procedure. Members of such a commission
shall be chosen for their recognized impartiality, competence and
independence as individuals. In particular, they shall be independent of any
suspected perpetrators and the institutions or agencies they may serve. The
commission shall have the authority to obtain all information necessary to
the inquiry and shall conduct the inquiry as provided for under these
Principles.
(b) A written report, made within a reasonable time, shall include the scope
of the inquiry, procedures and methods used to evaluate evidence as well as
conclusions and recommendations based on findings of fact and on
applicable law. Upon completion the report shall be made public. It shall also
describe in detail specific events that were found to have occurred and the
evidence upon which such findings were based and list the names of
witnesses who testified, with the exception of those whose identities have
been withheld for their own protection. The State shall, within a reasonable

231
 period of time, reply to the report of the investigation and, as appropriate,
indicate steps to be taken in response.
6. (a) Medical experts involved in the investigation of torture or ill-treatment
shall behave at all times in conformity with the highest ethical standards and,
in particular, shall obtain informed consent before any examination is
undertaken. The examination must conform to established standards of
medical practice. In particular, examinations shall be conducted in private
under the control of the medical expert and outside the presence of security
agents and other government officials.
(b) The medical expert shall promptly prepare an accurate written report,
which shall include at least the following:
(i) Circumstances of the interview : name of the subject and name and
affiliation of those present at the examination; exact time and date; location,
nature and address of the institution (including, where appropriate, the room)
where the examination is being conducted (e.g., detention centre, clinic or
house); circumstances of the subject at the time of the examination (e.g.,
nature of any restraints on arrival or during the examination, presence of
security forces during the examination, demeanor of those accompanying the
prisoner or threatening statements to the examiner); and any other relevant
factors;
(ii) History: detailed record of the subjects story as given during the interview,
including alleged methods of torture or ill-treatment, times when torture or
ill-treatment is alleged to have occurred and all complaints of physical and
psychological symptoms;
(iii) Physical and psychological examination : record of all physical and
psychological findings on clinical examination including appropriate
diagnostic tests and, where possible, colour photographs of all injuries;
(iv) Opinion: interpretation as to the probable relationship of the physical and
psychological findings to possible torture or ill-treatment. A
recommendation for any necessary medical and psychological treatment
and/or further examination shall be given;
(v) Authorship: the report shall clearly identify those carrying out the
examination and shall be signed.

232
(d) The report shall be confidential and communicated to the subject or
his or her nominated representative. The views of the subject and his
or her representative about the examination process shall be solicited
and recorded in the report. It shall also be provided in writing, where
appropriate, to the authority responsible for investigating the
allegation of torture or ill-treatment. It is the responsibility of the
State to ensure that it is delivered securely to these persons. The
report shall not be made available to any other person, except with
the consent of the subject or on the authorization of a court
empowered to enforce such a transfer.

233