August 29,2018:

Khushika Setia, is a student of LLB at Punjabi University, Patiala. She is currently interning with LatestLaws.com.

Definition of Torture

The elements constituting torture in Sections 3 and 4 of the Bill are wholly inadequate. Not only they do not conform to the definition of torture established in Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT), but also hardly address the full scale of acts amounting to torture that are routinely practiced in India.Section 3 of the Bill defines torture as : whoever being a public servant or being abetted by a public servant or with the consent or acquiescence of a public servant, intentionally does any act for the purpose to obtain from him or a third person such information or confession which causes:-

(i) Grievous hurt to any person or

(ii) Danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of any person, is said to inflict torture.

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to any pain, hurt or danger as aforementioned caused by any act, which is inflicted in accordance with any procedure established by law or justified by law.

Article 1(1) of the UNCAT defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering whether physically or mentally, is inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or

intimidating or coercing him or a third person or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

The degree of harm required to constitute torture is more severe in the Bill, whereas the Convention’s threshold starts from ‘pain or suffering’. The Bill states that only actions that cause actual damage or danger constitute torture.

“Torture is wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone, paralysing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself”.-Adriana P. Bartow

Custodial torture is universally held as one of the cruelest forms of human rights abuse. The Constitution of India, the Supreme Court, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the United Nations forbid it. But the police across the country defy these institutions. Therefore, there is a need to strike a balance between the individual human rights and societal interests in combating crime by using a realistic approach.

Provisions under the Indian Legal System: To Protect a Person from Custodial Torture

Protection against Conviction or Enhanced Punishment under Ex-Post Facto Law

Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides that, no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to any greater penalty than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of an offence.The concept of ex-post facto law has its roots in the maxim nulla poena sine lege, which profounds the idea that no man shall be made to suffer except for a distinct breach of the criminal law. The implications of this maxim can be broadly stated as under:-

It prohibits retrospective imposition of criminality.
It prohibits the extension by analogy of a criminal rule to cover a case not obviously falling within it, and.
It prohibits formulation of the penal laws in excessively vague and wide terms.

Article 20(1) sets two limitations upon the law making power of every legislative authority in India as regards to retrospective criminal legislations. It prohibits –the making of an ex- post facto criminal law i.e. making an act a crime for the first time and making that law retrospective and the infliction of a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law, which was in force when the act was committed.

Articles 245, 246 and 248 of the Constitution confer power on the Parliament and the State Legislature to make laws. There is nothing in these Articles to provide that the Indian legislatures do not possess the right to make retrospective legislation which every sovereign legislature possesses. However, the only express limitation imposed upon the power is retrospective legislation that is contained in Article 20(1)^.

In Shiv Bahadur’s case it was observed that prohibition contained in the Article 20(1) is not confined to the validity or passing of the law but extends to conviction or sentence based on its character as an ex- post facto law. Article 20(1) prohibits the creation of a new offence with retrospective effect. It does not prohibit the creation of a new rule of evidence or a presumption for an existing offence .

In Soni Devrajbhai Basubai’s case the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Article 20(1). In this case dowry death punishable under the newly inserted Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code was sought to be made applicable against the respondents. The appellant’s daughter was married to the respondent on 13 August 1986, and she died under mysterious circumstances. The appellant suspected foul play and got a case registered under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. He further applied for a petition seeking the addition of the charge under newly inserted Section 304-B of IPC which had become effective from 19 November 1986. The Supreme Court held that as on the date of the death of daughter of the appellant, Section 304-B of IPC had not come into existence and therefore the protection of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India would be available to the accused persons.

Protection against Double Jeopardy

Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

Article 20(2) is based on the maxims nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sid pro una et eadem causa, which means that no one must be vexed twice if it appears to the court that it is for one and the same cause.Not only the Constitution of India but also Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that, ‘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,’ and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have recognised the same right of an accused person. Provision of Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is wider in their ambit in contrast to Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. This is so as the Constitutional protection is available only to an accused person who has been prosecuted and punished, whereas under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the protection offered also extends to an accused person who had been prosecuted and acquitted. To cover under the provisions of clause (2) of Article 20, the following conditions are necessary:-

There must have been a previous proceeding before a court of law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction; and
The person must have been ‘prosecuted’ in the previous proceeding.
There should be not only a prosecution but also a punishment in the first instance to operate as a bar to a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence.
The application of the benefit is for an offence and in a judicial proceeding only.
The benefit does not flow in case of departmental action even though based on same facts.

Right not to be Witness against Himself

Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India provides that, no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

The Constitutional protection against testimonial compulsion on the premise that such compulsion may act as subtle form of coercion on the accused and it is also the underlying theme of several statutory provisions – particularly Sections 24-26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Article 20(3) of the Constitution comes into operation as soon as a formal accusation is made whether before the commencement of a prosecution or during its currency.

Section 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that,

No police officer or other person in authority shall offer or make, or cause to be offered or made, any such inducement, threat or promise as is mentioned in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).
But no police officer or person shall prevent, by any caution or otherwise, any person from making in the course of any investigation under this Chapter any statement which he may be disposed to make of his own free will:

provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 164.

Section 164 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that, Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:-" I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.

The right against self-incrimination guaranteed under the Indian criminal justice system is in tune with international law. Article 14(3) (g) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obliges the State parties to provide some minimum guarantees to persons who are charged with criminal offences as not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

Section 348 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides that whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The right against self incrimination recognizes the fundamental principle of criminal law that the accused must be presumed innocent and it is for the prosecution to establish his guilt.

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that, a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

The accused cannot be compelled to make any statement against his will. These propositions emanate from an apprehension that if the statements of the accused were admitted as evidence, then force or torture may be used by the investigating authorities to trap the accused. This may be prejudicial or against the interest of the accused person.This right seeks to enable him to preserve his privacy, dignity and inviolability of his person from torture.

Section 25 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that, no confession made to a police-officer shall be proved as against to a person accused of any offence.

Section 26 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such persons.

Section 27 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that, no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 21 does not contain any express provision against torture or custodial crimes. The expression ‘Life or personal liberty’ occurring in the Article has been interpreted to include constitutional guarantee against torture, assault or injury against a person.

In Maneka Gandhi’s case, judiciary has expanded the scope and ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to live under Article 21 is not confined merely to physical existence but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. In Inderjeet v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that punishment which has an element of torture is unconstitutional. The Court has frowned upon the practice of keeping prisoners condemned to death sentence in solitary confinement apart from Article 21 the Court has also held it invalid under Article 20(2). A person under death sentence is held in jail custody, so that he is available for execution of the death sentence when the time comes. No punitive detention can be imposed on him by the jail authorities except for prison offences. He is not to be detained in solitary confinement as it will amount to imposing punishment for the same offence more than once which would be violative of Article 20(2).

ln Inder Singh v State (Delhi Adm.), the Supreme Court issued certain directions regarding treatment of two young men convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a view to reform them. Article 21 of the Constitution is the jurisdictional root for this legal liberalism .

In Jolly George Varghese v Bank of Cochin, the high value of human dignity and the worth of human person enshrined in Article 21 read with Article 14 and Article 19 obligate the State to incarcerate except under law which is fair, just and reasonable in its procedural essence.

In Raghubir Singh v Haryana, the Supreme Court said, “We are deeply disturbed by the diabolical recurrence of police torture resulting in terrible scars in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new peril because the guardians of the law destroy human rights.”

In Pram Shanker Shukla v Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court held that handcuffs are prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, and at first blush arbitrary without fair procedure and objective monitoring. The Court recognized the need to secure the prisoner from fleeing but asserted that this does not compulsorily require handcuffing. The guidelines laid down by the Court are:To be used only if a person is a) involved in serious non-bailable offences, has been previously convicted of a crime; and/or b) is of desperate character-violent, disorderly or obstructive; and/or c) is likely to commit suicide; and/or is likely to attempt escape.

Reasons for handcuffing must be clearly recorded in the police Daily Diary in order to reduce discretion.
Police must first seek judicial permission for the use of restraint during arrest or on a detainee.
At first production of an arrested person, the Magistrate must inquire whether handcuffs or fetters were used, and if so, demand an explanation.

In the case of Sunil Batra (II) v Delhi Administration the Court reiterated that “handcuffs and irons bespeaks a barbarity hostile to our goal of human dignity and social justice”. In Kishore Singh v State of Rajasthan case Krishna Iyer, J. has observed, “Nothing is more cowardly and unconscionable than person in police custody being beaten up and nothing inflicts a deeper wound on our constitutional culture than a State official running berseck regardless of human rights”.

Right of Privacy

A citizen to have his house free from snooping by the State and also to have it protected from all other kind of invasion by the authority is of a fairly long antiquity. The right of privacy was advanced in the year 1963 in Kharak Singh v State of U.P. In this case meaning of term ‘personal liberty’ was considered by the Supreme Court. Both the majority and minority on the bench relied on the meaning given to the term ‘personal liberty’ by an American Judgement in Munn v Illinois which held that, “Life meant something more than mere animal existence.

The prohibition against its deprivation extended to all those limits and facilities by which the life was enjoyed. This provision equally prohibited the mutilation of the body or the amputation of an arm or leg or the putting out an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicated with the outer world.” Iyyengar, J., in the majority view, categorically refused to accept the American precedents as according to the Court the Constitution of India did not guarantee the ‘Right of Privacy’. However, the minority view expressed by Subba Rao, J., relied upon American precedents in highlighting the ‘Right of Privacy’.

The Supreme Court, however, emphasized the Right of Privacy of a person forcefully in State of Maharashtra v Madhukar Narayan Mardikar In this case a departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent police inspector on the charge that he attempted to trespass into the house of the complainant woman with an intention to have illicit intercourse with her against her wish. As his attempt was frustrated, he took the plea that the complainant was a woman of easy virtue and he had raided the house for the purpose of action under the Excise Act.

His plea was rejected and on the charge being proved he was dismissed from service. However, the Bombay High Court quashed the said order. Observing, that the complainant was an unchaste woman and it would be unsafe to allow the fortunes and career of a governmental official to be put in jeopardy upon the uncorroborated version of such a woman who makes no secret of her illicit intimacy with another person. The

Supreme Court, reversing the judgement of the Bombay High Court observed that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.“Even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when one likes. So also it is not open to any and every person to violate her person as and when he wishes. She is entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate it against her wish. She is equally entitled to the protection of the law” .

Right to be Informed of the Ground of Arrest

Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India provides that,

no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

Section49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that,

the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.

Section50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that, person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.

Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.

The right of information of the grounds of arrest would enable the person arrested to prepare for his defence and also to move the court for bail, or writ of habeas corpus.Failure of communication of the grounds of arrest would entitle the person arrested to release.

Section 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that, Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Code shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his friends; relatives or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information.

The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station.
An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State Government.
It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section
and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person.

Section 55A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that, it shall be the duty of the person having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused.

Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that, the police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall notify the substance thereof to the person to be arrested, and, if so required, shall show him the warrant.

Right of an Accused Person to Counsel Right to Counsel is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India by virtue of Article 22 (1). The right to consult a lawyer is intended to enable the detained person –

to secure release, if the arrest is totally illegal.
to apply for bail, if the circumstances so warrant, to prepare for his defence; and
to ensure that while he is in custody, no illegality is perpetrated upon him.

Right to Speedy Trial Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India provides that,

Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

The right to be produced before a Magistrate under Article 22(2) is intended to enable the detained person-

To have adequate and defensive opportunity for seeking release on bail and
Availability on avenue where the person detained can ventilate his grievances that he might have against the treatment meted out to him in custody.
To have independent scrutiny of the legality of the detention.

Article 9(3) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that ‘any one arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings and should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement’. Article 14(3) further provides that, ‘in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the certain minimum guarantees, in full equality, inter alia to be tried without undue delay’. Under the Indian Constitution the right to speedy trial has been held as a fundamental right arising within the scope of Article 21.

Section 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that, Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate of officer in charge of police station. A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of a police station.

Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that, no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period, than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.

Section 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that, officers-in-Charge of police stations shall report to the District Magistrate, or, if he so directs, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the cases of all persons arrested without warrant, with the limits of their respective stations, whether such persons have been admitted to bail or otherwise.

Section 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that,the police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall (subject to the provisions of Section 71 as to security) without unnecessary delays bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to produce such person:

Provided that such delay shall not, in any case, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.

Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that, no Magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage.

Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that, Explanation II– If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorizing detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.

Protection against Illegal Arrest

India is a party to many International Conventions/Covenants which prohibit torture. But there are no explicit provisions in the Constitution regulating the incorporation of and status of international law in Indian legal system. Article 51(c) stipulates as one of directive principles of State policy, that: “the State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another.”

Article 253 of the Constitution of India provides that, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India implementing any treaty or, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body.

The judicial opinion in India as expressed in numerous recent judgements demonstrates that the rules of international law should be constructed harmoniously, and only when there is an inevitable conflict between these two laws municipal law should prevail over international law.

The Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board v Chandrime Das observed the applicability of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles thereof may have to be read, if need be, into the domestic jurisprudence. In Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India the Supreme Court stated that “the provisions of the Covenant, which elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, can certainly be relied upon by Courts as facets of those fundamental rights and hence, enforceable as such.

The Tokyo Rules provide a set of basic principles to promote the use of non-custodial measures, as well as minimum safeguards for person subjected to alternatives to imprisonment. Pre-trial detention is used as a last resort in criminal proceedings, with due regard for the investigation of the alleged offence and for the protection of society and the victim. Alternatives to pre-trial detention shall be employed at as early stage as possible. Pre-trial detention shall last no longer than necessary. The judicial authority, having at its disposal a range of non-custodial measures should take into consideration in making its decision the rehabilitative needs of the offender, the protection of society and the interests of the victim, who should be consulted wherever appropriate. Sentencing authorities may dispose of cases in the following ways:-

Verbal sanctions, such as admonition, reprimand and warning;
Conditional discharge;
Status penalties;
Economic sanctions and monetary penalties, such as fines and day-fines
Confiscation or an expropriation order;
Restitution to the victim or a compensation order;
Suspended or deferred sentence;
Probation and judicial supervision;
A community service order;
Referral to an attendance centre;
House arrest;
Any other mode of non-institutional treatment;
Some combination of the measures listed above.

It is submitted that these Rules should be incorporated in the Indian legal system as India is bound to put in place all those measures that may pre-empt the perpetration of torture

The Supreme Court of India in various cases has laid down guidelines and principles of custody jurisprudence; leaving no space for any ambiguity in understanding the spirit behind the Constitutional and statutory provisions relating to human rights and human dignity. Custody jurisprudence includes provisions regarding arrest, handcuffing, custodial crime and victim compensation. The horizon of human rights is expanding, at the same time; the crime rate is also increasing. The Courts have voiced their concern regarding indiscriminate use and abuse of power of arrest by law enforcement agencies on several occasions. The Apex Court while commenting on the violation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrest observed that, “the law of arrest is one of the balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges on the one hand and responsibilities on the other hand: of weighing and balancing or rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively: of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis: of deciding which comes first the criminal or the society, the law violation or the abider”

The National Human Rights Commission’s Guidelines on Arrest

The National Human Rights Commission has issued following detailed guidelines regarding arrest, keeping in view various judicial pronouncements

Pre-arrest Guidelines
The power to arrest without a warrant should be exercised only after a reasonable satisfaction is reached, after some investigation, as to the genuineness and bonafides of a complaint and a reasonable belief as to both the person’scomplicity as well as the need to affect arrest. Arrest cannot be justified merely on the existence of power, as a matter of law, to arrest without a warrant in a cognizable case.
After Joginder Kumar case pronouncement of the Supreme Court the question whether the power of arrest has been exercised reasonably or not is clearly a justifiable one.
Arrest in cognizable cases may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances;
The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc. and it is necessary to arrest the suspect to prevent him from escaping or evading the process of law.
The suspect is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences.
The suspect requires to be prevented from destroying evidence or interfering with witnesses or warning other suspects who have not yet been arrested
The suspect is a habitual offender who, unless arrested, is likely to commit similar or further offences.
Except in heinous offences, as mentioned above, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to the person to attend the police station and not leave the station without permission.
Police officers carrying out an arrest or interrogation should bear clear identification and name tag with designations. The particulars of police personnel carrying out the arrest or interrogation should be recorded contemporaneously in a register kept at the police station.
Arrest Guidelines
As a rule, use of force should be avoided while affecting arrest. However, in case of forcible resistance to arrest, minimum force to overcome such resistance may be used. However, care must be taken to ensure that injuries to the person being arrested, visible or otherwise are avoided.
The dignity of the person being arrested should be protected. Public display or parading of the person arrested should not be permitted at any cost.
Searches of the person arrested must be done with due respect to the dignity of the person, without force or aggression and with care for the person’s right to privacy

Searches of women should only be made by other women with strict regard to decency.

The use of handcuffs or leg chains should be avoided and if at all, it should be resorted to strictly in accordance with the law repeatedly explained and mandated in judgement of the Supreme Court in Prem Chander Shukla v Delhi Administrationand Citizen for Democracy v State of Assam.

As far as is practicable women police officers should be associated where the person or persons being arrested are women. The arrest of women between sunset and sunrise should be avoided.
Where children or juveniles are sought to be arrested, no force or beatings should be administered under any circumstances. Police officers may for this purpose, associate respectable citizens so that the children or juveniles are not terrorized and minimal coercion is used.
Where the arrest is without a warrant, the person arrested has to be immediately informed of the grounds of arrest in a language which he or she understands. Again, for this purpose, the police, if necessary may take the help of respectable citizens. These grounds must have already been recorded in writing in police records. The person arrested should be shown the written reasons as well and also given a copy on demand.
The arrested person can, on a request made by him or her, demand that a friend, relative or other person known to him be informed of the fact of his arrest and the place of his detention. The police should record in a register the name of the person so informed.
If a person is arrested for a bailable offence, the police officer should inform him of his entitlement to be released on bail so that he may arrange for sureties.
Apart from informing the person arrested of the above rights, the police should also inform him of his right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of his choice. He should also be informed that he is entitled to free legal aid at state expense.

When the person arrested is brought to the police station, he should, if he makes a request in this regard, be given prompt medical assistance. He must be informed of this right. Where the police officer finds that the arrested person is in a condition where he is unable to make such request but is in need of medical help, he should promptly arrange for the same. This must also be recorded contemporaneously in a register. Only a female registered medical practitioner should examine the female requesting for medical help

Information regarding the arrest and the place of detention should be communicated by the police officer affected the arrest without any delay to the police control room and District/State Headquarters. There must be a monitoring mechanism working round the clock.
As soon as the person is arrested, police officer affecting the arrest shall make a mention of the existence or non-existence of any injury on the arrestee in the register of arrest. If any injuries are found on the person of the arrestee, full description and other particulars as to the manner in which the injuries were caused should be mentioned in the register, entry shall also be signed by the police officer and the arrestee. At the time of release of the arrestee, a certificate to the above effect under the signature of the police officer shall be issued to the arrestee.
If the arrestee has been remanded to police custody under the orders of the court, the arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained Medical Officer every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. At the time of his release from the police custody, the arrestee shall be got medically examined and a certificate shall be issued to him stating therein the factual position of the existence or nonexistence of any injuries on his person.
Post arrest Guidelines
The person under arrest must be produced before the appropriate court within 24 hours of the arrest^.
The person arrested should be permitted to meet his lawyer at any time during the interrogation.

The interrogation should be conducted in a clearly identifiable place, which has been notified for this purpose by the Government. The place must be accessible and the relatives or friend of the person arrested must be informed of the place of interrogation.

The methods of interrogation must be consistent with the recognised rights to life, dignity and liberty and right against torture and degrading treatment.
Enforcement of Guidelines
The guidelines must be translated in as many languages as possible and distributed to every police station. It must also be incorporated in a handbook which should be given to every policeman.
Guidelines must receive maximum publicity in the print or other electronic media. It should also be prominently displayed on notice board, in more than one language, in every police station.
The police must set up a complaint redressal mechanism, which will promptly investigate complaints of violation of guidelines and take corrective action.
The notice board, which displays guidelines must also indicate the location of the complaints redressal mechanism and how that body can be approached.
NGOs and public institutions including courts, hospitals, universities etc. must be involved in the dissemination of these guidelines to ensure the widest possible reach.
The functioning of the complaint redressal mechanism must be transparent and its reports should be accessible.
Prompt action must be taken against errant police officers for violation of the guidelines. This should not be limited to departmental enquiries but should also set in motion the criminal justice mechanism.
Sensitization and training of police officers is essential for effective implementation of the guidelines.