DILIP K BASU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In D.K. Basu etc. v. State of West Bengal etc., 1997 1 SCC 416 this Court lamented the growing incidence of torture and deaths in police custody. This Court noted that although violation of one or the other of the human rights has been the subject matter of several Conventions and Declarations and although commitments have been made to eliminate the scourge of custodial torture yet gruesome incidents of such torture continue unabated. The court described 'custodial torture' as a naked violation of human dignity and degradation that destroys self esteem of the victim and does not even spare his personality. Custodial torture observed the Court is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backwards. The Court relied upon the Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure and the Third Report of the National Police Commission in India to hold that despite recommendations for banishing torture from investigative system, growing incidence of torture and deaths in police custody come back to haunt. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1994 4 SCC 260; Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors., 1993 2 SCC 746; State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors., 1995 4 SCC 262; and the 113th report of the Law Commission of India recommending insertion of Section 114-B in the Indian Evidence Act, this Court held that while the freedom of an individual must yield to the security of the State, the right to interrogate the detenus, culprits or arrestees in the interest of the nation must take precedence over an individual's right to personal liberty.

(2.) This Court also examined whether compensation could be awarded and declared that pecuniary compensation was permissible in appropriate cases by way of redressal upon proof of infringement of fundamental rights of a citizen by the public servants and that the State was vicariously liable for their acts. The Court further held that compensation was payable on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity was not available and that the citizen must receive compensation from the State as he/she has a right to be indemnified by the government.

(3.) D.K. Basu(1) was followed by seven subsequent orders Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B. and Ors., 1997 6 SCC 642; Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B. and Ors., 1998 9 SCC 437; Dilip Kumar Basu v. State of W.B. and Ors., 1998 6 SCC 380; Dilip K. Basu and Ors. v. State of W.B. and Ors., 2002 10 SCC 741; Dilip K. Basu and Ors. v. State of W.B. and Ors., 2003 11 SCC 723; Dilip K. Basu and Ors. v. State of W.B. and Ors., 2003 11 SCC 725; and Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B. and Ors., 2003 12 SCC 174. All these orders were aimed at enforcing the implementation of the directions issued in D.K. Basu(1). It is not, in our view, necessary to refer to each one of the said orders for observations made therein and directions issued by this Court simply show that this Court has pursued the matter touching enforcement of the directions with considerable perseverance.