BABASAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA: AN ANALYSIS

LEGAL WRITING AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

(LLB – 143)

Supervised By : Submitted By :

DR. Shailesh Mishra Kishan Chaturvedi

(Professor) Roll No – 196647, 9th Semester;

BBA.LL.B(H);

Department of Law;

School of Legal Studies

Page 1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I take this opportunity with a deep sense of gratitude and immense pleasure to offer

my special thanks to my Parents who has been my source of Inspiration and guiding force and who

created and maintained a congenial atmosphere for writing this Paper.

I am extremely thankful to my Mentor ―Dr. Shailesh Mishra”, for his invaluable guidance, constant

encouragement and co-operation for completing the project. He has been a constant pillar of support for

me.

I respectfully acknowledge the altruistic support of the administration and library staff for providing

assistance in my work.

“I express my gratitude to the faculty of Department of Law, BBAU for the necessary guidance in

the subject which has been the base for this small piece of work”

Kishan Chaturvedi

Page 2
 ABBREVIATIONS

All India Reporter - AIR

Alternate Dispute Resolution System – ADRS

Appeal - App.

Article – Art.

Bar Council of India - BCI

Company - Co.

Commissioner - Comm.

Code of Criminal Procedure – Crpc

Criminal – Cri

Ed. - Edition

Factory Law Reporter - FLR

Ibid – ibidem

Indian Bar Review – IBR

In Re – In Reference

Justice – J.

Judges – JJ.

Labour Law Journal - LLJ

Labour Law Reporter – LLR

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices - MRTP

S. – Section

Supreme Court – SC

Page 3
Supreme Court Cases - SCC

Supreme Court Reporter – SCR

Versus – v

Page 4
 LIST OF CASES

 Mohd. Jafar v. Union of India, (AIR 1994)

 Prabha Dutt v. Union of India, (AIR 1982)

 Gajanan Visheshwar Birjur v. Union of India, (AIR 1994)

 Vishwa Hindu Parishad v. Collector and DM Machilipatnam AIR 2001
 Sangharaj Damodhar Rupwate v. Nitin Gadre, (AIR2007)

 Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

 Nandini Satpathy (Smt.) v. P.L. Dani, (AIR 1978 SC)
 Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (AIR 2010)
 Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 2006)
 Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325

 Jitendra Panchal v. The Intelligence Officer, NCB, (AIR 2007)

 State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte, (AIR 1961)

 Mumbai Municipal Corporation v. Haji B. Choudhary, (AIR 2009)

 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (AIR 2015)

 M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954
 Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963

 Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, (AIR 1980)

 Shabnam v. Union of India, (AIR 1995)

 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610

 Manharbhai Kakade v. Shaileshbhai Patel, (AIR 2013)

 Nandini Satpathy (Smt.) v. P.L. Dani, (AIR 1978)

 Rekha M. Kholkar v. State of Goa, (AIR 1996)

 State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India, (AIR 2004)

 Delhi Domestic Working Women‘s Forum v. Union of India, (AIR 1994)

 Gopi Nath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (AIR 1984)

Page 5
 Sheela Barse v. Union of India (AIR 1986)

 Apex Court in Sanjay Suri v. Delhi Administration, (AIR 1988 SC 414)

 Sakshi v. Union of India, 2004 All MR (Cri) 2520 (SC)

 Ranchod Mathur Wasawa v. State of Gujarat (1974) 2 SCR 72

 Supreme Court in Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928

 Fulkumar S. Sighrahwav v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3029 (India)

 Abdul Razak v. State of Kerala, 2010 (1) Crimes 551 (SN) (DB) (Ker) (India)

 Dial Singh v. I.G. of Prisons, Punjab, 988 Cri LJ 661 (India)

 Re: Death of 25 Chained Inmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu, (2002) 1 SCR 839 (India)

 Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 939 b (India)

 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 409 (India)

 Asgar Y. Mukadam v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 All MR (Cri) 3010 (India)

 State of Maharashtra v. Prabhaka Pandurang Sanzgiri, AIR 1966 SC 424 (India)

 Mulin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 2 SCR 516 (India)

Page 6
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Table of Contents

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: AN ANALYSIS............. 1

 ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................................3-4

 LIST OF CASES......................................................................................................................... 5-6

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 9

1.1. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 9

1.2. Literature ReviewBooks ........................................................................................................ 10

1.3. Scope and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 11

1.4. Research Questions................................................................................................................ 12

1.5. Research Methodology .......................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER-2........................................................................................................................................ 14

WHAT IS AN ARREST.............................................................................................................. 14

Examples of Arrests and Non-arrests ........................................................................................... 14

THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN AN ARREST .......................................................................... 16

CHAPTER-3........................................................................................................................................ 18

 Rights of an Arrested person under the Constitution ....................................................................... 19

 Right Against Self Incrimination.................................................................................................. 19-20

 Double Jeopardy ........................................................................................................................ 21-22

Page 7
  Right To Privacy ......................................................................................................................... 22-24

 Right to Life ................................................................................................................................ 24-26

 RIght of Suspected Accused ........................................................................................................ 26

 Rights of Women .................................................................................................................... 27-28

 Rights of Juvenile and Children............................................................................................... 28-29

 Right to Free Legal Aid ............................................................................................................ 29-30

 Rights of Lunatics ........................................................................................................................ 30

 Right of Undertrials , Satyagrahis, detinues,etc. ....................................................................... 30-31

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 34

Page 8
 CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Overview

Any person has to be treated as a human being, irrespective of the fact that such person is a criminal.
The accused persons are also granted certain rights, the most basic of which are found in the Indian
Constitution. The basic assumption behind these rights is that the government has enormous
resources available to it for the prosecution of individuals, and individuals, therefore, are entitled
to some protection from misuse of those powers by the government. An accused has certain rights
during the course of any investigation; enquiry or trial of offence with which he is charged, and he
should be protected against arbitrary or illegal arrest. Every human is born with certain basic rights
that he is entitled to for instance, right to live and right to freedom etc. Similarly, every citizen of
every country is presented with certain rights that are absolutely fair without any prejudice in the
spirit of common brotherhood and conscience like the right to life, right to equality, right to
freedom, right to education, right to equality, right to freedom of religion and many more.
However, the same rights of a person can get surrendered if the person gets detained/ arrested for
committing a crime. Although an arrested person too has certain rights that explained below.

The legal system in India is established on the platform of ―innocent till proven guilty‖. An
unlawful arrest of an individual can be a violation of Article- 21 of the Indian Constitution that
states, ―no human shall be denied of his right to life and personal liberty except if established by
law‖ which means that the process must be fair, clear and not arbitrarily or oppressive.

Page 9
1.2. Literature Review

Books

i. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis, (8th Ed., 2019)

The Eight Edition, of this comprehensive and well-organized book, continues to dwell on the
multidimensional aspects on the Constitutional law. The rights of arrested persons are ot
expressly defined the Articles 14, 19 and 21 are available to the prisoners as well as freemen.
Prison walls do not keep out fundamental rights.

ii. K.D. Gaur, Textbook the Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publication, (6th Ed., 2016)

In the book there is a separate chapter in Annexure II on the Right of the Accused and Prisoners,
The Indian laws recognise the rights of any person who has been arrested, has been under a
trial, or in jail after their conviction. A person does not lose his/her basic human and
fundamental rights since one of the tenets of our criminal justice system states that a person is
presumed to be innocent until found guilty, and even after their conviction, they are allowed to
have certain rights. This chapter talks about the rights of an accused in India at the time of
arrest, at the time of search and seizure, during the process of trial and after conviction.

iii. Human Rights of Accused in India, Shodhganga,

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/39088/9/09_%20chapter%203.pdf

This paper on Shodhganga gives an insight on the rights of accused in India. The three segments
of Criminal Justice System viz., the police, the judiciary and the correctional institutions ought
to function in harmonious and cohesive manner. But in practice, one often finds that it is not
the case. The police, instead of protecting and promoting human rights, are often found to
violate them. The National Human Rights Commission has been receiving reports of custodial
deaths, non-registration of cases, arbitrary arrests, custodial violence etc. A person in custody
of the police, an under-trial or a convicted individual does not lose his human and fundamental
rights by virtue of incarceration.

Page 10
1.3. Scope and Objectives

The scope of the project titled, RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: AN ANALYSIS, is limited to understanding and analysing the
Rights of an Arrested Person under the Constitution of India 1950.

The objectives of the project are as follows:

 To understand the Arrest and provisions related to Arrest.

 To understand and analyse the various Constitutional rights that an arrested person has.

 To know the importance of Rights through case laws and judicial interpretation.

Page 11
1.4. Research Questions

This research assignment deals with a number of questions regarding the arrest of an individual
and the rights of an arrested person. The questions answered in this assignment are -

 What is an Arrest?

 What are the provisions of Law related to Arrest?

 What are the Rights that are enshrined to an Arrested person under the Constitution?

Page 12
1.5. Research Methodology

Doctrinal legal research method has been used for this topic. The sources of this topic have been
depicted from books, journals, articles etc. The research is presented after the thorough readings of the
primary and secondary sources. Internet also played a major role to conduct research in this project.

According to S. N. Jain,

"Doctrinal research involves analysis, arranging, ordering & systematizing data and studying through
reasoning or rational deduction.‖

Empirical research is research using experiential, experimental and imperative evidence. It is a way of
gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience.

Page 13
 CHAPTER-2

WHAT IS AN ARREST

When deciding whether someone has been arrested, courts apply the "reasonable man" standard. This
means asking whether a reasonable person, in the shoes of the defendant, would have concluded that
he or she was not free to leave.

No arrest happens when an officer approaches someone in a public place and asks if the person is
willing to answer questions, as long as the officer does not restrain the person.

Examples of Arrests and Non-arrests

An arrest occurs when a police officer takes a person into custody. However, arrest is not synonymous
with being taken to jail. It is done because a person is apprehended for doing something wrong. After
arresting a person, further procedures like interrogation and investigation is done. It is part of the
Criminal Justice System. In an action of arrest, the person is physically detained by the concerned
authority. From all the senses, it can be deduced that arrest means to get a stop to a person‘s activity.

The following common situations illustrate the scope of an arrest:

Example A driver is stopped for a routine traffic violation. The driver technically is under arrest
because the driver is not free to leave until the officer has written a ticket (or if it‘s the driver‘s lucky
day, only issued a warning). But the arrest is temporary. Assuming the officer has no basis to suspect
that the driver is engaged in criminal activity other than the traffic violation, the officer usually releases
the driver once the driver produces identification and signs a promise to appear in court (assuming a
ticket was written). Traffic stop arrests do not become part of a person‘s arrest record, and do not count
as arrests for the purpose of answering the question, ―Have you ever been arrested?‖ (on a job or license
application, for example).

Example A shopper in a mall is stopped by a police officer who says, ―I‘d like to know whether you
saw the robbery that took place a few minutes ago in the jewelry store.‖ No arrest has taken place.

Page 14
People questioned by police officers are not under arrest unless the officers indicate that they are not
free to leave. (For reasons of personal safety, however, the shopper should not simply walk away from
the officer without the officer‘s permission.)

Even if the officer refuses permission, thereby placing the shopper under arrest, this arrest, like the
traffic stop arrest, doesn‘t count as an arrest if the shopper is allowed to leave after the questioning
and is not charged with a crime. Example A police officer yells, ―Hold it right there, you‘re under
arrest!‖ to a suspect who assaulted someone on the street. The suspect flees. The suspect has not been
arrested because the suspect has neither been taken into custody nor voluntarily submitted to the
police officer‘s authority.

Example A police officer yells, ―Hold it right there, you‘re under arrest!‖ to two suspects who
assaulted someone on the street. As the officer handcuffs Suspect 1, the officer tells Suspect 2, ―Stay
right there and don‘t move.‖ Suspect 2 does not move. By submitting to the police officer‘s
authority, Suspect 2 has been arrested, even though Suspect 2 has not physically been taken into
custody.

Example A store security guard has arrested someone for shoplifting and turns the suspect over to a
police officer. The police officer issues a citation instructing the suspect to appear in court on a
charge of petty theft. The suspect has been arrested, but does not have to go to jail. This would count
as an arrest even if the shoplifter were a minor, although many states allow minors to eventually
expunge (delete) arrests from their record.

Page 15
 THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN AN ARREST

As per Ballentine's Law Dictionary 1948 Ed.P.105, arrest means the taking, seizing, or detaining of
another, either by touching, or putting hands on him, or by any act which indicates an intention to take
him into, subjects the person arrested to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest.

Chapter V and section 41 to 59 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, deals with Arrest of Persons. As per
section 41 (1) Cr.P.C, any police officer may, without an order from a Magistrate can arrest any person,

(a) who has been concerned in any cognizable offence, or a reasonable complaint has the credible
information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists; or

(b) who has in his possession of any implement of house breaking or

(c) who has been proclaimed as an offender or

(d) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property or

(e) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped from lawful
custody;

(f) reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces.

As per section 42 of Cr.P.C., any person who, in the presence of a police officer, has committed,
accused of committing a non-cognizable offence, refuses on demand of such officer to give identity of
his residence, can be arrested.

As per section 50 of Cr.P.C., person arrested without warrant has to be informed about the ground and
about his entitlement regarding bail.

As per section 53 of Cr.P.C., when a person is arrested and if there are reasonable grounds for be
examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for
medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector (and
acting in good faith in his aid and his direction), to make such an examination of a person is reasonably
necessary, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.

Page 16
When a person of a female is to be examined under this section, the examination shall be ma under the
supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner.

As per section 56 of Cr.P.C., A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without
unnecessary subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before
a Magistrate jurisdiction in the case or before the officer in-charge of a police station.

As per section 57 of Cr.P.C., No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant
period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the
special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed 24 hours exclusive of the time necessary from
the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court.

As per section 151 of Cr.P.C., a person can also be arrested to prevent commission of cognizable
offence.

Page 17
 CHAPTER-3

RIGHTS OF AN ARRESTED PERSON UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

The Indian Constitution is unique in both spirit and content. The Constitution of India is the pride of
our nation. It is the supreme law of India and nobody in India even the President has the power to do
something that violates the constitutional rule. The Constitution of India lays down an important
framework that demarcates the structure of the political system, powers, and duties of government
institutions and gives the people their fundamental rights and duties towards the country. The main
aim of the constitution is to protect the fundamental rights of the people. All human beings are born
with the Right to Life, Right to Personal Liberty, etc. Human rights are enshrined under the
Constitution of India and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A person cannot be denied of
his rights on the grounds that he/she has been detained. The various rights of an arrested person can
be inferred from the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Constitution of India and various landmark
judgements. The Indian legal system is based on the concept of, ―innocent till proven guilty‖. The
arrest of a person can be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution that states, ―no person shall be
deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except a procedure established by law‖. It means that
the procedure must be fair, clear and not arbitrarily or oppressive.

Any person has to be treated as a human being, irrespective of the fact that such person is a criminal.
The accused persons are also granted certain rights, the most basic of which are found in the Indian
Constitution. The basic assumption behind these rights is that the government has enormous
resources available to it for the prosecution of individuals, and individuals, therefore, are entitled to
some protection from misuse of those powers by the government. An accused has certain rights
during the course of any investigation; enquiry or trial of offence with which he is charged, and he
should be protected against arbitrary or illegal arrest.

All human beings enjoy their right to life and personal liberty, irrespective of their identity. This
means that even the right of a person who is accused of a heinous crime, is sacred and cannot be
taken away from him. As mentioned under Article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR), ―All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and are endowed with
reason and conscience and should act towards one another in the spirit of common brotherhood and

Page 18
conscience‖ These basic human rights are preserved in our Constitution

The rights which are been provided in constitution of India and criminal procedure code it denotes that
every human have their own rights with them. The benefit of the presumption of innocence of the
accused till the time he is actually found guilty at the ending of a trial substantiated with evidence, is
one of the basic tenets of our legal system. It is a characteristic of our democratic society that even the
rights of the accused are deemed to be sacrosanct, and even though he is charged with an offence
however that does not render him as a non-person. Our statute is quite careful towards anyone‘s
personal liberty and hence doesn‘t permit the detention of any person without proper legal sanction.

There are two types of arrest:

(i) Arrest made in pursuance of a warrant issued by a magistrate

(ii) Arrest made without such a warrant.

Mohd. Jafar v. Union of India,1 In this case, by a notification dated 10th December, 1992, the Central
Government declared the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JEIH), an unlawful association under sub-section (1)
of section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. One of demands made by JEIH was
that the Government should hold plebiscite on Kashmir. Part of Notification, viz, ―and directs, in
exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (3) of that section, that this notification
shall have the effect from the date of its publication in the official gazette‖ was held to be bad in law
and was struck down by the court. Further, the court held that even temporary suspension of
fundamental right is invalid unless covered by article 19(4). In Prabha Dutt v. Union of India2, petition
under article 32 was filed by the Chief Reporter of the ‗Hindustan Times‘, asking for a writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents, particularly the Delhi
Administration and the Superintendent of Tihar Jail, to allow her to interview convicts Billa and Ranga
who were under a sentence of death. The apex court held that (a) The right conferred by article 19(1)(a)
which includes the freedom of the press, is not an absolute right. The press in entitled to exercise its
freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter which does not invade the rights of others
citizens and which does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state

1
Mohd. Jafar v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCR 111 [LNIND 1994 SC 339] (India)
2
Prabha Dutt v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCR 1184 [LNIND 1981 SC 430] (India)

Page 19
Public order, decency and morality. (b) The right to means of information through the medium of an
interview cannot be claimed by the press unless in the first instance, the person sought to interviewed
is willing to be interviewed.

In Gajanan Visheshwar Birjur v. Union of India3, the petitioner challenged the validity of confiscation
of books by the Customs authority in this writ petition. Books imported contained writings, speeches
and works of Mao, besides works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Quoting Robert Jackson, J. who said
―thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism‖ and allowing the appeal, the court observed- ―we
must express our. Here, the Constitution Bench of five judges has held that, ―the right to hold public
meeting in a public street is a fundamental rights of citizens- freedom of assembly is an essential
element of a democratic system‖. Vishwa Hindu Parishad v. Collector and DM Machilipatnam,4 In t
his case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that permission to hold public meeting in a public
place cannot be denied simply because the proposed meeting was a religiousmeeting. The Full Bench of
the Bombay High Court has held that right to information is a part of cherished fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression. The Court further held that fundamental freedom should not be kept
in wraps by using outdated tool of locus standi; Sangharaj Damodhar Rupwate v. Nitin Gadre,5

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, In this case, the Honourable Apex Court held
that right to information is intrinsic part of fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a)6 of the Constitution. However, such right is subject to reasonable restrictions
under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Maria Monica Susairaj v. State of Maharashtra. Here, the
Honourable Bombay High Court has held that police have responsibility to ensure that any information
given to media was accurate. Police department would lay down norms for its officers regarding
sharing of information to press.

RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION (RIGHT OF SILENCE)

One Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified
by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which
resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the
jury. He was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on
each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda‘s constitutional rights were

3
Gajanan Visheshwar Birjur v. Union of India, (1994) Supp 1 SCR 466 (India)
4
Vishwa Hindu Parishad v. Collector and DM Machilipatnam AIR 2001 AP 173 [LNIND 2000 AP 894] (India)5
Sangharaj Damodhar Rupwate v. Nitin Gadre, 2007 (5) AIR Bom R 166 (FB) (India)

Page 20
not violated in obtaining the confession. He filed appeal before the Supreme Court of United States.
The issue before the Court was whether statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to
custodial police interrogation are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether procedures
which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege, under the Fifth Amendment to the US
Constitution, not to be compelled to incriminate himself are necessary? The Supreme Court of United
States held that a defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain
silent and he has the right to the presence of an attorney. If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be
appointed for him prior to any questioning, if he so desires. This case came to be known as ―Miranda
Warning‖ and is cited throughout the world as a landmark judgment on custodial interrogation and
right to silence; Miranda v. State of Arizona7.

Nandini Satpathy (Smt.) v. P.L. Dani8. In this case, the apex Court has held that the accused persons
cannot be forced to answer questions. He is entitled to keep his mouth shut if the investigating officer
or under orders of a Court for the purpose of comparison is not violative of Article 20(3) of the
Constitution. Further, the Honourable Court held that the provisions of section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act did not offend Article 20(3) unless compulsion was used in obtaining the information.
In a landmark judgment, the Apex Court held that compulsory administration of certain scientific
techniques, such as narco-analysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile
(BEAP) test violate the right against self-incrimination and it would also amount to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment. The Court further held that results obtained from such tests amount to testimonial
compulsion thereby attracting the bar of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India; Selvi v. State of
Karnataka9. Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab,10 This is a case of rape and murder of a six years old girl.
The investigation officer claimed that some human hair were found in the hands of the deceased and
therefore he filed an application in Court for obtaining specimen of hair of accused. However, accused
refused to give such specimen hair. The Honourable Apex Court held that appellant had the right to
give or not to give sample of his hair. He could not be made a witness against himself against his will.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sunil, Criminal Appeal 1432-1434 of 2011 decided on 2nd May, 2017. In
this case, the Honourable Apex Court held that compelling an accused to provide footprint specimen

7
Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) (United States of America)
8
Nandini Satpathy (Smt.) v. P.L. Dani, 1978 Cr LJ 968 : AIR 1978 SC 1025 (India)
9
Selvi v. State of Karnataka, 2010 (2) Crimes 241 (SC) (India)
10
Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006 (4) Crimes 380 (SC) (India)

Page 21
is not in violation of the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and non-
compliance by accused to give footprints cannot be the sole basis of conviction.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

The provisions relating to double jeopardy are as follows: Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India -
No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

Section 300(1), Cr.P.C. - A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for
an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains
in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence
for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section
(1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.

Section 26 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 - Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under
two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either
or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.

Section 71 of IPC - Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself
an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the imprisonment of more than one of such his
offences, unless it be so expressly provided. The principle is based on the maxim―nemo debet bis
vexari, si constat curice quod sit pro una iti eadem causa‖ which means that no man shall be punished
twice, if it appears to the Court that it is for one and the same cause.

The doctrine of ‗autrefois convict‘ (former conviction) and ‗autrefois acquit‘ (former acquittal) applies
only when the offence for which the accused was tried and the offence for which he is again tried must
be identical and based on the same set of facts. This principle does not apply if the later charge is civil
rather than criminal in nature.

Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay,11 In this case, the Constitution Bench held that Article 20(2)
incorporates within its scope the plea of ‗autrefois convict‘ as known to the British jurisprudence or
the plea of double jeopardy as known to the American Constitution but circumscribes it by providing
that there should be not only a prosecution but also a punishment in the first instance in order to operate
as a bar to a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence; Jitendra Panchal v. The

11
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325 [LNIND 1953 SC 51] (India)

Page 22
Intelligence Officer,12 In this case, the Bombay High Court held that Article 20(2) undoubtedly
prohibits prosecution and punishment to a person for the same offence more than once. It incorporates
the rules against double jeopardy, but it is different from the one found in USA and UK in the sense
that it restricts to the principle of ‗autrefois convict‘ and does not extend to that of ‗autrefois acquit‘.
The Article 20(2) to be operative, both prosecution and punishment must coexist.

In other words, Article 20(2) would become operative in a case when the second prosecution and
punishment is for the identical offence for which the person concerned had already been prosecuted
and punished earlier. The Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the above
decision of the Bombay High Court, which is reported in 2009 All MR (Cri) 902 (SC)

The State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte,13 (1961) 3 SCR 107 [LNIND 1960 SC 328. Here, the Constitution
Bench held that the crucial requirement to attract Article 20(2) is that the two offences should be
identical. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse and compare the ingredients of the two offences and not
the allegations made in the two complaints, to see whether their identity is established.

Monica Bedi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Here, the appellant was tried and convicted at Lisbon in
Portugal for being in possession of fake passport. However, she was again prosecuted and tried in India
for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 419, 420 of IPC. The Appellant raised the plea of
double jeopardy and prayed for setting aside the conviction. The Apex Court held that plea of double
jeopardy is wholly untenable and unsustainable. The Court further held that protection against double
jeopardy is in the nature of an injunction against the state but initial burden is upon accused to take
necessary plea and establish the same. Mumbai Municipal Corporation v. Haji B. Choudhary14, This
case relates to complaint regarding unauthorised construction, where one complaint was filed with
police under MRTP Act and second complaint in respect of the same subject-matter was filed by the
Municipal Corporation. The complaint filed with police under MRTP Act was already dismissed. The
Court held that principle of double jeopardy would be applicable to the present case.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Further, the Apex Court held that (2.2) ―when a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising his
right to freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the

12
Jitendra Panchal v. The Intelligence Officer, NCB, 2007 All MR (Cri) 3127 (Bom)
13
State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte, (1961) 3 SCR 107 [LNIND 1960 SC 328] (India)
14
Mumbai Municipal Corporation v. Haji B. Choudhary, 2009 All MR (Cri) 2052 (India)

Page 23
Constitution.‖ And issued orders and directions that ―An order of telephone tapping in terms of section
5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 shall not be issued except by the Home Secretary, Government
of India and Home Secretaries of the State Government. Number of persons raised concerns about
sharing of bio-metric data in Aadhaar Card, alleging that such exercise infringes the right of privacy.
In one of the petitions, filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India,15 the Honourable
Apex Court has passed an interim order directing the Union of India that no person should suffer for
not getting the Aadhaar Card, inspite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it
mandatory. In the related matters regarding the Aadhaar Card issue, the honourable Apex Court has
directed the Union of India and held that the Aadhaar Card Scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot
be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by the Supreme Court.
While hearing WP (Civil) No. 494/2012, the Honourable Apex Court observed that doubt has been
created by the judgement in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra,16and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh,17the matter has been referred to larger bench. But the bench has passed an interim order
directing that UIN i.e., Aadhaar Card will not be used by the Government for any purpose other than
PDS scheme and in particular for distribution of food grains, cooking fuel and LPG distribution. In this
case, Mario Costeja Gonzalez filed a complaint in 2010 with the Spanish Data Protection Agency (the
AEPD) against a local newspaper and Google Spain for claims relating to auction notices mentioning
Gonzalez published in 1998. The notices concerned real estate auctions held to secure repayment of
Gonzalez‘s social security debts. He contended that these pages were no longer necessary because the
attachment proceedings concerning him had been fully resolved. He sought removal of the pages from
local newspaper and also sought removal of the links from Google. The AEDP dismissed the plaintiff‘s
claim against the newspaper, but allowed those against Google. Google appealed to Spain‘s High
Court, which in turn referred the matter to European Court of Justice. In appeal, the Grand Chamber of
the European Court of Justice held that the European citizens have a right to request that commercial
search firms, such as Google, that gather personal information for profit should remove links to private
information when asked, provided the information is no longer relevant. The Court observed that the
fundamental right to privacy is greater than the economic interest of the commercial firm.

15
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2015 (5) All MR 970 (SC) (India)
16
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 [LNIND 1954 SC 40] (India)
17
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Prades, AIR 1963 SC 1295 [LNIND 1962 SC 436] (India)

Page 24
. The Supreme Court of Japan rejected his demand for removal of news search results of his arrest on
sex charges and further held that to do so would violatefreedom of expression. However, the Court held
that if the legal interests for non-disclosure clearly outweigh the reasons for providing information,
search engine providers can be requested to remove the relevant URLS from search results.

RIGHT TO LIFE (RIGHT TO DIGNITY)

The Supreme Court of India in its various judgements has held that handcuffing or chaining a person
is violative of basic right to dignity. The Supreme Court of India has held in Prem Shankar Shukla v.
Delhi Administration18, that ―handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and therefore, unreasonable, is over
harsh and at the first blush, arbitrary. Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring to inflict ―irons‖
is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21 But to bind a man hand and foot, fetter his
limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the Courts is to
torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the sole of Constitutional culture. Iron straps
are insult and pain writ large, animalising victim and keepers‖. Further the Court held that the escorting
authority must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so.

In Citizens for Democracy v. The State of Assam19, the Apex Court has held that ―handcuffs or other
fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner-convicted or undertrial while lodged in a jail any where in the
country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to court and back. The
police and the jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to direct the handcuffing of any
inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another jail or to Court and back‖.
Further, the Court has held that in all cases of arrest by police, the persons arrested shall not be
handcuffed unless special orders in that respect are obtained from the Magistrate at the time of the
grant of the remand. The apex Court has warned all police and prison authorities that if they violate
any of the direction issued by the Court, they shall be summarily punishable under the Contempt of
Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law. In Shabnam v. Union of India, it was
held by the Apex Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution has its traces in dignity of human
being. It does not end with confirmation of death sentence, but goes

18
Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCR 855 [LNIND 1980 SC 215] (India)19 Shabnam v. Union of
India, (1995) 3 SCR 943 (India)

Page 25
beyond and remains valid still such convict meets his/her destiny. Even condemned prisoners have a
right to dignity.

In Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Apex Court held that right of reputation is a necessary
element in regard to life of a citizen under Article 21. Even international covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, 1996 recognises the right to have opinions. The right of freedom of expression under article 19
is subject to the right of reputation of others. Reputation is not only a salt of life but the purest treasure
and the most precious perfume of life.

In a landmark judgment in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal,: (1996)20, the Supreme Court directed
that the following requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrests or detention till legal provisions
are made in the behalf as preventive measures:

i The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear
accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all
such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.

ii That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the
time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of
the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall
be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

iii A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in a police station or interrogation
centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or
having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is
being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such
a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

iv The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police, where
the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district of town, through the Legal Aid
Organisation in the district and the police station of the area concerned, telegraphically within a period
of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.

20
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 (India)

Page 26
v The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or
detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.

vi An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention, regarding the arrest of the person which
shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and
the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.

vii The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and
minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The ―Inspection Memo‖
must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to
arrestee.

viii The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during
his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Directors, Health
Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. Directors, Health Services should prepare such a
panel for all Tehsils and Districts as well.

ix Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to Illaqua
Magistrate, for his record.

x The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the
interrogation.

XI A police control room should be provided at all districts and state headquarters, where information
regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer
causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be
displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

RIGHTS OF SUSPECTED ACCUSED

The accused or the person suspected to have committed crime, has right to be heard, whether the order
under challenge is at pre-process stage or at post-process stage is unconsequential; Manharbhai
Kakade v. Shaileshbhai Patel,21.

21
Manharbhai Kakade v. Shaileshbhai Patel, 2013 Cri LJ 144 (SC) (India)

Page 27
RIGHTS OF WOMEN

The Apex Court, in Nandini Satpathy (Smt.) v. P.L. Dani,22 has held that the act of a police officer
directing a woman to appear in police station is violative of section 160(1) of Cr. P.C. In Rekha M.
Kholkar v. State of Goa,23 the Division Bench directed I.G. to instruct all officers in writing, to strictly
comply with the provisions of section 160(1), Cr. P.C. in all cases involving interrogation of
woman.In State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India,24 the Supreme
Court has directed the arresting authorities to make all efforts to keep a lady constable present while
arresting a female person. In Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India,25 where six
women were raped by seven army personnel in Muri express on way from Ranchi to Delhi, on
petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution, the Court has indicated
the following broad parameters in assisting the victims of rape—

a The complainant of sexual assault cases should be provided with legal representation. It is important
to have some one who is well acquainted with the criminal justice system. The role of the victim‘s
advocate would not only be to explain to the victim the nature of the proceeding, to prepare her for the
case and to assist her in the police station and in the court but to provide her with guidance as to how
she might obtain help of a different nature from other agencies, for example, mind counselling or
medical assistance. It is important to secure continuity of assistance by ensuring that the same person
who looked after the complainant‘s interests in the police station, represent her till the end of the case.

b Legal assistance will have to be provided at the police station to the victim of rape.

c The police should be under a duty to inform the victim of her right to representation before any
questions were asked of her and that the police report should state that the victim was so informed.

d A list of advocates willing to act in these cases should be kept at the police station for victims who
did not have a particular lawyer in mind or whose own lawyer was unavailable.
e The advocate shall be appointed by the Court, upon application by the police at the earliest
convenient moment, but in order to ensure that victims were questioned without undue delay,
advocates would be authorised to act at the police station before leave of the Court was sought or
obtained.

22
Nandini Satpathy (Smt.) v. P.L. Dani, 1978 Cri LJ 968 (India)23 Rekha M. Kholkar v. State of Goa, 1996 (1) Mh LJ 430
(India)24 State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India, AIR 2004 SC 7 [LNIND 2003 SC 886]
25
Delhi Domestic Working Women‘s Forum v. Union of India, (1994) Supp 4 SCR 528 (India)

Page 28
f In all rape trials anonymity of the victim must be maintained, as far as possible.

g To setup Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

h Compensation for victims shall be awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender and by the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board whether or not a conviction has taken place.

RIGHTS OF JUVENILES AND CHILDREN

In Gopi Nath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal26, the Apex Court has held that:

a where a juvenile delinquent is arrested, he/she has to be produced before a juvenile Court, and if no
juvenile Court is established for the area amongst others, the Court of Sessions will have powers of a
juvenile Court and

b Such juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of the nature of the offence alleged to
have been committed. Further, the Court issued practice directions that whenever accused appears to
be aged 21 years or below, an enquiry must be made about the age of the accused on the date of
occurrence. And the Court further directed that, Magistrate may refer him to Medical Board or Civil
Surgeon or The Magistrate may direct accused to lead evidence about his age. The Apex Court, in
Sheela Barse v. Union of India,27 has held that the children accused of having committed offences
should not be kept in jail. They should be kept in Remand Homes or released on bail. Further, the
Court directed the investigating agencies to complete the investigation of offences within three months
of lodging complaint/FIR The Court further directed the juvenile Courts to complete the trial within
six months from the filing of charge sheet.

The Apex Court in Sanjay Suri v. Delhi Administration,28 has directed that juvenile delinquents should
not be assigned work in the same area where regular prisoners are made to work and care should be
taken to ensure that there is no scope for their meeting and having contacts with regular adult prisoners.
In addition to the directions given in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the Apex Court has given
following directions in Sakshi v. Union of India,29 to protect children who are victims of sex abuse or
rape:

26
Gopi Nath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (1984) 1 SCR 803 (India)
27
Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) 3 SCR 562 (India)
28
Apex Court in Sanjay Suri v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1988 SC 414 [LNIND 1987 SC 883] (Ind29 Sakshi v.India,
2004 All MR (Cri) 2520 (SC) (India)

Page 29
i The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 327 of Cr. P.C. shall, in addition to the offences
mentioned in the sub-section, would also apply in inquiry or trial of offences under sections 354 and
377, IPC

ii In holding trial of child sex abuse or rape: a) a screen or some such arrangements may be made
where the victim or witnesses (who may be equally vulnerable like the victim) do not see the body or
face ofthe accused;

b) the questions put in cross-examination on behalf of the accused, in so far as they relate directly to
the incident, should be given in writing to the Presiding Officer of the Court who may put them to the
victim or witnesses in a language which is clear and is not embarrassing;

c) the victim of child abuse or rape, while giving testimony in Court, should be allowed sufficient
breaksas and when required.

RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID

The accused has a right of free legal assistance at the State‘s cost. The Supreme Court has held in
Ranchod Mathur Wasawa v. State of Gujarat,30 that ―indigence should never be a ground for denying
a fair trial or equal justice. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to appoint competent
advocates equal to handling the complex cases - not patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar‖.
The Supreme Court in Khatri v. State of Bihar,31 has held that State‘s duty to provide legal aid to the
arrested persons also arises when accused is first produced before Magistrate. In serious and heinous
offences, the Bombay High Court has directed the subordinate Courts to appoint only those advocates
who have experience of actual conducting of minimum three cases under NDPS Act or five cases in
serious and heinous offences; Fulkumar S. Sighrahwav.State of Maharashtra,32. This was a case of
murder, where a junior lawyer of three years standing was engaged to defend the accused under legal
aid. There was no effective cross-examination on material points. Neither omissions were brought to

30
Ranchod Mathur Wasawa v. State of Gujarat (1974) 2 SCR 72 [LNIND 1973 SC 309] (India)
31
Supreme Court in Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928 [LNIND 1980 SC 473] (India)
32
Fulkumar S. Sighrahwav.State of Maharashtra, 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3029 (India)

Page 30
the notice of witnesses nor contradictions were put to witnesses. The Court set aside conviction and
sentence holding that poor lawyering of defence lawyer can be taken as a ground vitiating the trial;
Abdul Razak v. State of Kerala,33.

RIGHT OF LUNATICS

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dial Singh v. I.G. of Prisons, Punjab,34 has observed as regards
the detention of persons in mental asylum and duty of Court that ―a person might conceivably have all
kinds of delusions, but if his conduct remains normal, there does not appear to be any power to deal
with him under the Act. What appears material for purposes of the Act is the conduct exhibited by
the alleged lunatic. It is the test which is to be kept in view by the Court while assuming jurisdiction
under the Act.... The Court is duty-bound to determine judicially keeping in view the distinction
between mere weakness of intellect and lunacy as defined in section 3(5) of the Act as to whether the
person alleged to be lunatic deserves to be confined within the four walls of an asylum‖.

In Re: Death of 25 Chained Inmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu,35 the Apex Court has directed the
Central and State Governments to undertake a comprehensive awareness campaign, with a special rural
focus, to educate people as to provisions of law relating to mental health, rights of mentally challenged
persons, the fact that chaining of mentally challenged persons is illegal and that mental patients should
be sent to doctors and not to religious places such as Temples or Dargahs.

RIGHT OF UNDERTRIALS, SATYAGRAHIS, DETENUES, ETC

The Supreme Court of India in Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar,36 has held that ―undertrial prisoners
cannot be kept in leg irons nor can he be asked to work outside the jail wall.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration37 the Apex Court has held that ―practice of keeping under trials
with convicts offends Article 21‖. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Asgar Y.
Mukadam v. State of Maharashtra,38 has held that ―unconvicted prisoners, detenues and Satyagrahis
have right to have their own food, clothing, etc and the

33
Abdul Razak v. State of Kerala, 2010 (1) Crimes 551 (SN) (DB) (Ker) (India)
34
Dial Singh v. I.G. of Prisons, Punjab, 988 Cri LJ 661 (India)
35
Re: Death of 25 Chained Inmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu, (2002) 1 SCR 839 (India)
36
Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 939 b (India)
37
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 409 (India)
38
Asgar Y. Mukadam v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 All MR (Cri) 3010 (India)

Page 31
Magistrate concerned can grant permission for the same on an application moved by such persons. The
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhaka Pandurang Sanzgiri,39
has held that ―prohibiting a detenu from writing a book or sending it for publication infringed the
personal liberty of the respondent.‖

In Francis Coralie Mulin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi,40 the Apex Court has held
that

(a) the prisoner or detenu has all the fundamental rights and other legal rights available to a free person,
save those which are incapable of enjoyment by reason of incarceration. A prisoner or detenu is not
stripped of his fundamental or other legal rights, save those which are inconsistent with is incarceration,
and if any of these rights are violated, the Court will immediately spring into action and run to his
rescue.

(b) any act which damages or injures or interferes with the use of any limb or faculty of a person either
permanently or even temporarily would be within the inhibition of Article 21

(c) the right to life includes right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely,
the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading,
writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling
with fellow human beings.

(d) He would be entitled to have interviews with the members of his family and friends and no prison
regulation or procedure laid down by prison regulation regulating the right to have interviews with the
members of the family and friends can be upheld as constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21,
unless it is reasonable, fair and just.

(e) the right of a detenu to consult a legal advisor of his choice for any purpose not necessarily limited
to defence in a criminal proceeding but also for securing release from preventive detention or filing a
writ petition or prosecuting any claim or proceeding, civil or criminal is obviously included in the right
to live with human dignity and is also part of personal liberty and the detenu cannot be deprived of this
right nor can this right of the detenu be interfered with except in accordance with reasonable, fair and
just procedure established by a valid law.

39
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhaka Pandurang Sanzgiri, AIR 1966 SC 424 (India)
40
Mulin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 2 SCR 516 (India)

Page 32
 CONCLUSION

India faces a huge problem of illegal arrests as well as custodial deaths which are majorly caused due
to illegal arrests. These problems undermine the essence of Article- 21 of the Indian Constitution as
well as the fundamental human rights that are available to everyone under the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The stipulations issued in D.K. Basu v. West Bengal by the Supreme Court of India
are not being properly executed and therefore, it is the need of the hour to try and execute the issued
provisions and guidelines properly which can definitely bear better results which would ultimately
help decrease the number of an illegal arrests and resulting custodial deaths. In spite of the various
safeguards in the The Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the in the constitution the power of arrest
given to the police is being misused till this day. It is the duty of the police to protect the rights of
society. It must rembered that this society includes all people, including the arrested.

Page 33
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and e-books referred:

 Dr. Durga Das Basu, Intriduction to the Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis (22nd Ed.,2015)
 Dr. JN Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency (56th Ed., 2019)
 KD Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis (6th Ed., 2019)
 M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis, (8th Ed., 2019)

Web journals and articles referred:

 Muskan, Arrests and Rights of Arrested Persons, Legal Service India,
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1747-arrest-and-rights-of-arrested-person.html
[Accessed 6 May, 2020]
 Vivek Narayan Sharma, Know Your Rights: Rights of An Arrested Person, Times of India,
July 5 2018, know-your-rights-part-1-rights-of-an-arrested-person/ [Accessed 7 May, 2020]
 Mahak Gandhi, Arrested Persons Rights under Cr.PC, Lawtimes Journal, July 23 2019,
http://lawtimesjournal.in/arrested-persons-rights-under-crpc/ [Accessed 7 May 2020]

STATUTES:

 The Constitution of India, 1950 (India)

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)
 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Acts of Parliament 1967 (India)

Page 34