MULLILPUDI MUKUNDA RAO Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned G.P for Home. This Writ petition has been entertained on the basis of a telegram. One Chittibabu was arrested by police on 16-3-2003. The brother of said Chittibabu sent a telegram to the Chief Justice with an allegation that said Chittibabu was arrested in a false case. He had also informed the Court that the detenu's rights were getting violated and he was denied appearing in SSC Board examination which was scheduled.

(2.) Counter has been filed by the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Penumantra police station who submitted that on 16-3-2003 on complaint by one Kum.C. Aruna Kumari a case was registered against the brother of the complainant under section 354 IPC and he was arrested on 16-3-2003 and produced before the Magistrate on 17-3-2003 when he was released.

(3.) The police officer knew that the detenu had to appear for examination on 17-3-2003. It has been conceded in the counter affidavit that the detenu could not appear for his examination on 17-3-2003, however it has been stated that the detenu could appear for the examinations in the remaining papers. The fact of the matter remains that because of the insensitivity of the police the detenu has lost one year of his academic career because non-appearance in one paper would amount to his losing one year of the academic career. In D.K. Basu's case (D.K.Basu v. State of W.B) the Supreme Court considered the whole gamut of the citizens in custody. Though it dealt in detail with custodial violence but it also dealt with protection of fundamental rights and human rights. The Supreme Court dealt in extensive with the fundamental rights and human rights of criminals/ detenus vis--vis the duties of the police in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution and finally laid down the requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention till legal provisions were made. These requirements are 11 in number and if one goes by these requirements or directives one comes to the only conclusion that the Supreme Court was very particular in ensuring safety, health, fundamental and human rights of the detained or arrested persons. In the factual circumstances of this case we envisage that there are occasions where people are arrested by police, on suspicion of committing crime, who have to appear either an examination or an interview seeking a job. Because of their being in custody if they loose the chance an irreparable loss may occur to them. Right to pursue education is a fundamental right. Therefore, we direct that in case a person is taken into custody and is in police custody it shall be the duty of the Police concerned to make arrangements for such person to appear in the examination. Similarly, if a person has to appear for an interview for the purpose of securing a job it shall be again the duty of the police concerned to make arrangements for such detenu to appear before the Selection committee. These directions will also apply to the Magistrates in case the detenus are in judicial custody.