Custodial violence safeguards and public law compensation reinforce constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention.

Custodial torture, arbitrary arrest and degrading detention were treated as violations of the constitutional guarantees of life, personal liberty and protection against arbitrary arrest. To curb abuse, the Court prescribed mandatory arrest and detention safeguards, including identification of police personnel, arrest memo, intimation to relatives, medical examination, diary entries, access to counsel and notice to control rooms. Where infringement of fundamental rights is established, public law compensation was recognised as an available constitutional remedy, with the State held strictly liable for its functionaries' acts and sovereign immunity excluded as a defence. The remedy was described as compensatory and separate from criminal prosecution or civil damages.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether custodial torture, arrest and detention practices violated the fundamental rights to life, personal liberty and protection against arbitrary arrest, and whether preventive guidelines were required to regulate arrest and detention. (ii) Whether compensation is available in public law for established custodial violations and whether the State is liable on a strict-liability basis notwithstanding sovereign immunity.

Issue (i): Whether custodial torture, arrest and detention practices violated the fundamental rights to life, personal liberty and protection against arbitrary arrest, and whether preventive guidelines were required to regulate arrest and detention.

Analysis: Custodial violence and death in lock-ups were held to strike at the Rule of Law and to offend the guarantees under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The constitutional protection of life and personal liberty was treated as continuing even after arrest, and the use of torture, third degree methods or degrading treatment during interrogation was held impermissible. The statutory safeguards in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were noted as inadequate in practice unless supported by concrete procedural safeguards, transparency and accountability. To curb abuse, the Court framed binding requirements governing arrest, identification of police personnel, arrest memo, intimation to relatives, medical examination, diary entries, access to lawyer, notice to control rooms and related safeguards.

Conclusion: Custodial torture and arbitrary arrest were held to violate constitutional guarantees, and mandatory arrest and detention safeguards were issued.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation is available in public law for established custodial violations and whether the State is liable on a strict-liability basis notwithstanding sovereign immunity.

Analysis: The Court held that where infringement of Article 21 is established, mere declaration of illegality is not an adequate remedy. Public law compensation was recognised as a distinct constitutional remedy, separate from private law damages, available to redress established violations of fundamental rights. The liability was described as strict, the State being vicariously liable for the acts of its functionaries, and the defence of sovereign immunity was held unavailable in proceedings for enforcement of fundamental rights. Compensation was characterised as compensatory rather than punitive, without prejudice to criminal prosecution or civil remedies.

Conclusion: Monetary compensation in public law was held to be an available and appropriate remedy for proven custodial violations, and sovereign immunity was rejected as a defence.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirmed robust constitutional protection against custodial abuse, prescribed mandatory arrest safeguards, and recognised compensation as a public law remedy for established violations of personal liberty and life.

Ratio Decidendi: Where custodial violence or unlawful deprivation of life or liberty is established, the constitutional courts may award compensation in public law on the basis of strict State liability, and the State cannot rely on sovereign immunity to defeat such a remedy.

---