In D.K. Basu’s case Supreme Court observed :

..........“Custodial violence, including torture and death in

the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which

demands that the powers of the executive should not only

be derived from law but also that the same should be

limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern.

It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by

persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the

citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and

authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up,

the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an

individual from torture and abuse by the police and other

law-enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a

free society.

In spite of the constitutional and statutory

provisions aimed at safeguarding the personal liberty and

life of a citizen, growing incidence of torture and deaths

in police custody has been a disturbing factor. Experience

Shows that worst violations of human rights take place

during the course of investigation, when the police with a

view to secure evidence or confession often resorts to

third-degree methods including torture and adopts

techniques of screening arrest by either not recording the

arrest or describing the deprivation of liberty merely as a

prolonged interrogation. A reading of the morning

newspapers almost everyday carrying reports of

dehumanising torture, assault, rape and death in custody

of police or other governmental agencies is indeed

depressing. The increasing incidence of torture and death

in custody has assumed such alarming proportions that it

is affecting the credibility of the rule of law and the

administration of criminal justice system. The

community rightly feels perturbed. Society’s cry for

justice becomes louder.

Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes

in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. The

rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the

Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously

protected. We cannot wish away the problem. 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. If the functionaries of the

Government become law-breakers, it is bound to breed

contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and

every man would have the tendency to become law unto

himself thereby leading to anarchism. No civilized nation

can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his

fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests

him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance

on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of

human rights’ jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to

be an emphatic.

--

Haider Ajaz