OSMAN ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in the custody which have assumed alarming proportion raise serious question about the credibility to the Rule of Law and administration of criminal systems. No doubt it is true that the cry for justice is so loud that it deafens ear of the peace loving citizens of India that they cannot live in a peaceful atmosphere and they are disturbed with the apprehension that they may be one of the victims of torture and assault in the custody of the law protector in uniform.

(2.) The Constitution of India is adorned with Articles 20,21 and 22 which are almost in consonance with the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly 217 A (iii) of 10th December 1948. Articles 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, read as follows:

(3.) The word "life" has been used, prominently in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. "Life" is recognized as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and it has to have the same meaning and interpretation as had been placed with that word by the Apex Court is its various decisions relating to Article 21 the Constitution of India. The meaning or words "life" cannot be narrowed down. Lord Diplock in Salomon Vs. Commnr of Customs & Excise: (1996) 3 All ER 871 states that there is a prima facie presumption that the Parliamentarian does not intend to act in breach of international law. Again, Lord Bridge in Brind Vs. Secy, of State for Home Department: (1991) 1 All ER 720 (HL) observed that it is well settled that, in construing any provision in domestic legislation which is ambiguous in the sense that it is capable of a meaning which either conforms to or conflicts with the internal law conventions, the court would presume that parliament intended to legislate in conformity with the conventions and not in conflict with it.