<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (12) TMI 350 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156321</link>
    <description>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&#039; acts and sovereign immunity excluded as a defence. The remedy was described as compensatory and separate from criminal prosecution or civil damages.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 16:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 350 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156321</link>
      <description>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&#039; acts and sovereign immunity excluded as a defence. The remedy was described as compensatory and separate from criminal prosecution or civil damages.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>