Final Draft

ON
Constitutional Law
Humanizing criminal justice: In the light of Art 21

Introduction

Getting Back to the Basics

What is Crime ?
To what Extent it is a Problem ?
And the Concept of Punishment
Basics and types of punishment
And the humanistic approach
In the light of Article 21

Maneka Gandhi: the Beginning of the End of Atrocity with Criminals

1. Arrest and After Arrest: Everything Counts

2. Handcuffing of Under-Trials
3. The Police Torture
4. The Prison Administration
5. Prisoners Grievances
6. Long Pre-Trial Confinement
Conclusion
Appendix I

Bibliography

Introduction
One of the most dangerous cocktails in a democracy is when those who are meant to enforce the
law take the law into their own hands. Every week in India, several citizens-usually the poor and
those from the weaker section of society-are killed in police custody. According to the Asian
Centre for Human Rights, as many as 1504 custodial deaths were reported to the national human
right commission from April 2001 to March 2010 Most of this death occurred within forty-eight
hours of the victim being taken into the police custody. Other reports suggest that there were
over a thousand custodial deaths in 2008-09 alone. Let us not forget that these numbers do not
reflect a large no. of custodial deaths that goes unreported in India every year. The most
disturbing aspect of custodial violence is that it strikes at the very root of the rule of law in the
democracy and shatters the faith of the citizen in criminal justice system.1

I understand that it was not a proper way to introduce such a huge and sensitive topic; indeed it
would be an injustice if I dont introduce my subject matter properly. So firstly I am regretting
my inability to start me introduction the way it should have been, Moreover now I would be
introducing my assignment- Like an Introduction.

As I have mentioned earlier also that my topic is Humanizing Criminal Justice and that to in the
light of Art. 21 of The Indian Constitution. The first basic idea would be that whether there is
any need to bring Humanization in Criminal Justice and if than to what extent. Second would of
course be why if there any need of that and where all we perceive that inhumanity with the
criminal. Moreover we would be talking about the scope and ambit of article 21 and its effect on
1
Ten judgments that changed India 137 zia mody
the society specifically in Criminal Justice. We will also try and find the difference between pre
and post Maneka Gandhi decision.

This theory of Humanizing Criminal Justice is an oceanic in itself, but as my topic ask me to
limit it to the light and ambit of Art. 21, therefore, I would like to make my best effort to satite
the reader with all sort of knowledge information reasoning and all. And For that my Focus point
would be the one of the most leading judgment case in India and which actually has not only
changed the political, legal aspect but also the social aspect of the society.

Getting Back to the Basics

What is Crime ?
Crime has always been present in the human society. Its universality and inevitability is
recognised by all the major sociologists and philosophers. Emile Durkheim says There is no
society that is not confronted with the problem of criminality. Its form changes the act, thus,
characterised are not the same everywhere, but, everywhere and always, there have been men
who have behaved in such a way as to draw upon themselves penal repression. To classify crime
among the phenomenon of normal sociology is not to say merely that it is inevitable, although
regrettable phenomenon, due to incorrigible wickedness of men, it is to affirm that it is a factor
in public health, an integral part of all health societies:. Crime means any act or omission,
which under the law for the time being in force in the country concerned is made punishable.
What may be a sin-a wrongful act morally is not a crime if not so regarded by the law (of the
state) for the time being in force. And on the other hand, what may be regarded by the law as a
crime may not be morally wrong. Hence, a crime may be defined as an act or omission, sinful or
non-sinful, which a society or a State has thought fit to punish under its laws for the time being
in force. Various definition of crime have been given by various thinkers. Halsbury defines crime
as an unlawful act or default which is an offence against the public, and which renders to
perpetrator of the act or default liable to legal punishment.4 Michael and Alder regard Crime
as merely an instance of behaviour prohibited by criminal law. Sellin regards crime as
deviation from, or breach of a conduct norm. This deviation or breach is punished by society by
means of its sanctions. P.W. Tappan in his article Who is criminal gives the definition of
crime, as defined by law, a crime is an intentional violation of the criminal law, committed
without defence or excuse, and penalised by the State.7 Thus, crime is an act or omission which
the law thinks fit to punish.

There are many factors and causes behind crime such as biological, socio-psychological and
economic. In Gandhian view socio-economic factor is most important factor because according
to Gandhi man is inherently good. But, in legal language, the man who violates the provisions of
law with the intention of doing so is a criminal and is an anti-social being. He harms individual
as well as society. We can say, that the criminal is a mentally morbid or emotionally disturbed
person, a maladjusted being, most often a victim of unfavourable circumstances or of lack of
cultural and moral education. In some cases, he acts like an untamed animal, and is out to assault
even with a dangerous weapon, on the slightest provocation. To sum up, there are two
fundamental approaches to explanation of crime; first is individualistic or subjective and second
is environmental or objective approach. Individualistic approach lays emphasis on the
personality of the criminal. It considers crime as a product or expression of the individual
constitution. The environmental approach takes into consideration the physical and social
conditions which produce criminogenic influences on certain type of people called criminals. It
considers crime as a product or expression of society.

To what Extent it is a Problem ?

Crime had been a constant irritant for different types of rulers and the social reformers. It is a
major social problem and since ages society is trying to minimise it. Letting crime have its own
way without attempting to eradicate it by psychologically sound methods cannot benefit society.
Crime is a phenomenon, which is of primary concern to every members of society. Crime co-
exists with society. Unless the task of social and economic development of the society and the
restructuring of its social order is seriously and intelligently taken up and the evil features of the
administrative and political system eliminated, the crimes cannot be rooted out. In fact, it is a
common notion that criminals are not born but made. Social philosophers and reformers believe
that no man is born criminal. Kahlil Gibran sees human nature as basically good, asserting that
man does not turn bad unless circumstances go against him. Good and evil are two names for the
same thing and are not separated except by a thin line. Man is victimized by his human
weakness, his physical and emotional needs and the bad economic and environmental conditions
he has to endure which often push him to commit evil deeds . Circumstances and injustices,
which a man is unable to tolerate or cope with, make him as such. Thats why reformists are of
the opinion that do not hate criminals, hate crimes. It means that by simply punishing or killing
criminals, we cannot eradicate crime in society. And, the various legal systems have failed to
eradicate crime in society since the ages because it has confined itself to crime and criminals
only.

Man has failed to introduce into its criminal or penal law the truly humanizing elements of
mercy, compassion and understanding for those who are inclined to commit acts, which are anti-
social and harmful to the common interest of society as a whole. The objects of punishment are
to bring about reformation of the offender, to prevent him from committing crime again.
Punishment cannot work through repressive method, as it does not off the criminal desires. The
tendency of modern punishment should be to use old-re-educative methods, which in result will
be more meaningful and more capable in reformation and treatment of criminals. None of the
criminal is so hardened that he will not respond to the sympathetic, reformative and non-violent
approach. After all the history is full of the examples of change in heart. But to adopt this type of
trend we have to study thoroughly the causes of crime, then only, we will be able to remove
those causes, which give origin to it.

And the Concept of Punishment

The concept of punishment is an old one. If a person has deliberately done the wrong action as a
result of his own free will, he will be considered guilty and is liable to punishment. The
justification for inflicting punishment on an individual lies in this, that he has deliberately done
that wrong, knowing the nature as well as the consequences thereof. Kant says that punishment
is an end in itself. He has held punishment of criminals, guilty of the violation of moral law, as
imperative. Hegel has justified punishment as necessary to annual the injury to the society
produced by crime. Punishment, according to him, is a logical compliment to crime.
Rechless remarks that it is the redress that the commonwealth takes against an offending
member. According to Westermarek, punishment is limited to such suffering as is inflicted
upon the offender in definite way, or in the name of, the society of which he is a permanent or
temporary member.12 Thus, punishment has been considered as a means of social control to
maintain some degree of social equilibrium and to induce conformity to the established rules of
society.

The history of punishment for the eradication of crime, starts with the rule of the jungle resulting
in deterrent theory. The ancient logic was that if a man kills, he in turn should be killed.
Historically, punishment was harsh and corporal punishment was predominant. In the classical
age, penalties were prescribed by various religious moral codes. The code of Hummurabi,
Hebrew codes, Manu Samhita, the Talmud, all laid down principles of responsibility for crimes,
private vengeance and the avoidance of such vengeance by provision of holy refuges for the
offender. In the Mediaeval age private vengeance continued, but evidence was necessary for
trials. Reformation involved religious redemption, which could be obtained by paying a debt to
society or through spiritual penance through the performance of various difficult rituals. The
modern penology recognizes the need for changing the anti-social attitudes into social attitudes
but as yet punishment as a vengeance or a deterrent has not been given up. However, the greatest
achievement is this, that this has been recognized clearly that mans personality is not separated
from his social environment and the objects of punishment are to bring about reformation of the
offender, to prevent him from committing crime again. Punishment cannot work through
repressive method, as it does not root off the criminal desires.

Basics and types of punishment

The primary objective of punishment is to protect society from crimes and criminals. The
existing justification of punishment, some of them ancient and some of them more recent in
origin are

1. retribution,
2. deterrence, and
3. reformation.

As a theory of punishment retribution is the oldest justification of punishment. This theory of

punishment holds that the aim of punishment is to make the offender suffer what his victim has
suffered, and so this theory appears to justify the law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth. In Hummurabis code (1875 B.C.) it was provided, If a man has caused the loss of
patricians eye, his eye one shall cause to be lost. If he has shattered a patricians limb, one shall
shatter his limb. If a man has made the tooth of a man that is his equal fallout, one shall make his
tooth fallout.14 Retribution considers punishment a means of restoring the social balance existing
before the perpetration of the crime. But, it in itself is not a remedy for the mischief of the
offence, but an aggravation of it. Punishment need not be an end itself but should be an
instrument for the attainment of social welfare.

According to the theory of deterrent punishment, the aim of punishment should be to deter others
from committing similar offences in future. Again the punishment to be inflicted on the criminal
should be such as to make him an example for others and such exemplary punishment shall
always check others from doing the same kind of wrong. One of the serious objections levelled
against this theory is that it uses the offender as means to the good of others. To punish a man in
order to convey a lesson to others is unethical and inhuman. Secondly, this fact has been
overlooked that the criminal behaviour is largely emotional and many crimes are committed in a
moment of excitement without a thought for the future penalty. Thirdly, the real weakness of the
deterrent theory is that if the only purpose of punishment is to deter people from wrongdoing, it
does not really matter whether the person punished is innocent or guilty.

According to the theory of reformative punishment, the aim of punishment should be to reform
the character of the offender. The value of punishment lays in educating the offender so as to
bring him to a normal place of his life. Thus, the purpose of punishment should be to change the
values of criminals and modify deviant behaviours patterns. The need for reformation was felt
long before by Pope Clement XI, who was of the opinion that, it is insufficient to restrain the
wicked by punishment, unless you render them virtuous by corrective discipline.

And the humanistic approach

The house of correction in England and the early prison system in America were supposed to
teach offenders a lesson and correct their shortcomings. But, later on with the advancement of
civilization, reformative view was adopted. Reformatories were established with a programme of
work education, recreation, and religious services with the purpose of rehabilitating the offender
and preparing him for his entrance back into law-abiding society. Criminals are treated as
patients. In the Gandhian philosophy criminals are treated as a sick man, as a diseased man.
According to Gandhi Sinner is equal to the saint in the eye of God. A saint who considers
himself superior to sinner forfeits his sainthood and becomes worse than sinner who, unlike the
proved saint, know not what he is doing.
Gandhian theory of crime and punishment was based on the unity of non-violence. Voluntary
and unconditional surrender of the chambal bandits at the instance of Acharya Vinoba and his
followers in 1960 was indeed a social miracle. It was small in its dimensions but great in its
significance and hidden potentialities. It proved beyond doubt the desirability and efficacy of the
non-violent approach in solving even sociological problems of administration, of justice, of
maintance of law and order and of dealing with crime.

Following Gandhi and Vinobha, Jay Prakash Narayan in 1972, made an experiment of non-
violent approach to the solution of the problem of crime, by persuading successfully the chambal
valley dacoits to self-surrender.Thus, a spiritual change of heart was also made possible even in
hardened criminals by this method. On J.P.s plea for the adoption of a policy of reconciliation
and liberal treatment for surrendering dacoits, an open jail was established at Mungawali
in Guna District of Madhya Pradesh. This Jail is unique among the modern jail. According to J.P.
This experiment has much deeper and wider sociological significance than other similar
projects undertaken earlier in India in imitation of correctional practices prevailing in most
western and other Asian countries.

The humanistic or non-violent approach consisted on treating the person or persons concerned
with real love, sympathy and understanding. Gandhi employed this method many times and on
most occasions he succeeded. His experiments in the application of truth and non-violence to
problems in the social, economic, political and legal fields are a great legacy to Indian people in
particular and the whole of mankind in general. He did view crime in a unique manner, in the
context of the toil surroundings. Similarly this concept of punishment was humanistic one,
largely premised on the aim of reform and rehabilitation of the criminals. The influence of his
humanistic philosophy is very much evident on various legislative acts and judicial decisions.
The humanistic theory of dealing with crime and criminals aims at sympathy, love and
compassion and it emphasizes on the abolition of avarices, greed and non-possession of wealth
and also advocates for non-violent approach to the solution of the problem of crime and
criminals. In fact, the totality of the penology must be directed towards modifying the offenders
behavioural patterns with the different technique and methodology.Meditation can play a role of
beacon light towards this direction.

Preksha Meditation programme has been conducted inside some jails in Rajasthan State. The
objective of programme was to apply the technique for the normalization and minimization of
aggressive and deviant behaviour of the inmates of the prison. The hypothesis was that the
accumulation of stress in nervous system, increased due to the abnormal flow of the chemical
from the glands and due to the prison environment causes fatigue and produce physiological and
psychological disorders such as anxiety, tension, depression, irritability, worry, high blood
pressure, insomnia, headache, confusion and consequently stress mounts in which mistakes and
maladaptive behaviour become unavoidable. Since stress is now medically understood as a major
contributor to disease, it should also be recognised as a major factor in crime. And for its cure
many physician and psychiatrists as a preventive measure of crime and delinquency have
prescribed preksha Meditation technique.

The elimination of stress and the culturing of orderly thinking is a positive development towards
crime prevention. The results of Preksha Meditation are highly encouraging. Participating
inmates exhibit increased interest in vocational and educational pursuits, while prison staff
experienced a significant decrease in disciplinary problem among inmates. These responses are
exactly opposite to criminal patterns of behaviour.

There is a great need of change in attitudes and values of individuals and society, if we wish to
have an effective crime prevention programme. Education has an important role to play in
moulding of character, hence, the elements of values files non-violence, peace, human
right, environmental ethics, conflict-resolution etc. should be inculcated in our educational
curriculum of elementary to higher education. There are some values and virtues in our culture,
which may certainly lead us to constructive, cooperative social behaviour. The need is to re-
introduce and promote those values in the society, which are primarily responsible for the
formation of our social behavioural patterns. The promotion of higher values of human life in our
society is the need of the day and it can be considered as an effective measure of crime
prevention programme. But first of all, we are to organise a fresh value system in our
communities, through which we can educate and make the persons understand the importance of
moral life and responsible social behaviour, which shall ultimately lessen the antisocial and
immoral behaviour. Perhaps the most basic change needed in the interest of crime prevention
would be the incorporation in our culture a genuinely humanistic, holistic and non-violent
approach that sees criminals as victim and not an offender of the society.
In the light of Article 21

Maneka Gandhi: the Beginning of the End of Atrocity with

Criminals

Maneka Gandhi is having a profound but beneficial impact on the administration of criminal
justice in India. The administration of criminal Justice and the condition prevailing in prisons
have long been extremely deplorable and sub-human; prisoners and mal-treated; criminal trials
are inordinately delayed; police brutality is legendary.

Every day one hears news of police brutality, prison maladministration and inordinately long
delay in trial of criminal cases resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. In spite of the accent on
socio-economic justice in the constitution, precious little has been has been done so far to
improve the matter in the area of criminal justice.

Administration of criminal justice is a state matter and a task assigned to the government (i.e.
executive). Fortunately, by reinterpreting Art 21 in Maneka Gandhi and by giving up the sterile
approach of Gopalan, the SC has found a potent tool to seek to improve matters, and to fill in the
vacuum arising from government mental inaction and apathy to undertake reform, in the area of
criminal justice. The Court now has being seeking to humanize and liberalize the administration
of Criminal Justice.

Arrest and After Arrest: Everything Counts

There is an old Latin legal Phrase which say that Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
(the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies), which straight forwardly
suggest that every accused is assumed to be innocent till his guilt being proved. So, the question
arise that wont it be contrary to this only provision that a man is being arrested in a market in
front of hundreds of people by putting handcuffs and not even informing to his family members.

An arrest can cause incalculable harm to a persons reputation and self-esteem. Arrest should be
made not merely on suspicion but only after a reasonable satisfaction reached after some
investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of the complaint and a reasonable belief as to
the persons complicity and even as to the need to effect arrest.

In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, the apex court has issued direction regarding arrest
the court has emphasized that a police officer may have the power to arrest but justification for
exercising the power is quite another matter.

In addition to that, the court has also expressly said that arrest is not must in all cases of
cognizable offences3.

Moreover, an arrested man has certain rights, viz., he has a right that a relative/friend of his be
informed about his arrest and the place of his detention; he has a right to consult a lawyer
privately.

Handcuffing of Under-Trials

The Supreme Court has declared in Prem Shankar4, that Hand Cuffing is prima facie in human,
and, therefore, unreasonable is over harsh and at first flush, arbitrary. The Court has declared it
to be a constitutional mandate that no prisoner is to be handcuffed or fettered routinely or merely
for the convenience of the custodian or the courts. The distinction between classes of prisoners
becomes constitutionally obsolete for this purpose as it cannot be assumed that a rich criminal or
under trial is any different from a poor under trial in the matter of security risk. To be consistent
with Art 14 and 19, handcuff must be the last refuge, not the routine regimen. Binding of the
accused by the police while in police custody violates Art 215.

2
AIR 1994 SC 1349.
3
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 4 SCC 437.
4
Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535.
5
Ibid, 1542.
The Police Torture

Ironically, in spite of the emphatic decisions of the Supreme Court strongly condemning all
forms of custodial violence, cases of custodial deaths actually increased in the 1980s. In August
1986, D.K. Basu, lawyer and executive Chairmen of an NGO that provided legal aid services in
West Bengal and latter appointed a judge of the Calcutta High Court, wrote the Chief Justice of
India to Draw his attention to several new articles reporting death in police Custody. In Basus
words, he wanted to persuade the chief justice that violence death rape assault and injuries in
custody have become the rule of the Government in police administration6.

He urged that the court shouldprescribe some strong modalities, for the manner in which
Indias citizen should be treated in police custody7 treating Basus letter as a writ petition, the
SC issued the notice to all state Government of India8-since the question of custodial death had
assumed significance on a national scale. It also asked the law commission of India to suggest
ways to tackle the disturbing situation.

The Court listed eleven mandatory requirements for police authority across India (see Appendix
I on page) these includes conducting regular medical examinations of the person in custody, the
right to inform a friend or relative of the arrestee, access to a lawyer during interrogation, and so
on.

In Sheela Barse9, the court has given direction to ensure the protection against torture and
maltreatment of Women in police lockup. For ex. There should be separate lock-ups for female
suspects guarded by female constables; interrogation of female should be carried out only in
presence of female constables.

The Supreme Court has now ruled that it is a well-recognized right under Art 21 that a person
detained lawfully by the police is entitled to be treated with dignity befitting a human being and

6
A Life Devoted to Providing Access to Indias Legal System and Averting Abuses in Police Custody: Interview with
D.K. Basu Human Rights Solidarity Journal, vol. 16 no. 2 (2006),
http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/2006volno02/2492/ (accessed 13 Feb. 2013).
7
Ibid
8
An instance of the SC taking suo motu action.
9
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
that legal detention does not mean that he could be tortured or beaten up. If it is found that the
police have ill-treated a detenu, he would be entitled to monetary compensation under Art 21.10

The Prison Administration

In the post-Maneka era, in a catena of cases, the Supreme Court has exposed the cruelty of the
system of Prison Administration in India, and has sought to humanize it. The court has taken an
active interest in seeking to improve a system which is cruel and insensitive human pain and
suffering. In the process the scope of fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by art 21
have been broadened.

Time and again the Supreme Court has emphasized that Art. 14, 19 and 21 are available to
prisoner as well as freemen. Prison wall do not keep out Fundamental Right11

The court has observed in this connection:12 A prisoner, be he a convict or under-trial or a

detenu, does not cease to be a Human Being. Even when lodged in jail, he continues to enjoy his
entire Fundamental Rights include the Right to life Guaranteed to him under the constitution. On
being convicted of crime and deprived of their liberty in accordance with the procedure
established by law, Prisoner still retains the residue of constitutional rights.

In Sunil Batra,13 the petitioner, sentenced to death on charges of Murder and robbery, was being
kept in solitary confinement pending his appeal before the High Court. He filed a writ petition in
the Supreme Court Art 32. The court emphasized in Sunil that Art 21 means that the law must
be right just and fair, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Otherwise, it would be no
procedure at all and the requirement of Art 21 would not be satisfied. If it is arbitrary it would be
violative of Art 14.

Prisoners Grievances

10
Mohan Lal Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh
11
T.V. Vetheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1983 SC 361
12
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishan Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 2083
13
Sunil Batra I, AIR 1978 SC 1675
The Supreme Court has assumed, under Art. 32 jurisdiction to consider prisoners grievances of
ill-treatment. In Charles Shobraj,14 the court has ruled that it can intervene with the prison
administration when constitutional Rights or statutory prescription are transgressed to the injury
of prisoner. For more detail in this subject matter refer to page no..

Long Pre-Trial Confinement

a very grievous and inhuman aspect of the present-day administration of criminal justice is a
long pre-trial incarceration of the accused persons. The poor persons have to languish in prisons
awaiting trial because there is no one to post bail for them.

Conclusion
Be it art 21 or be it Sociological view brutality against criminal is never be acceptable. And
unfairness or arbitrariness was never a tool of a government. Punishing the criminal is the basic
function of the state but maintain the humanity at the time opf doing it is its first and foremost
duty. A humanized criminal justice is not the need of the society which the state should fulfill but
it is the demand of the democratic crowd which the state can not avoid.

Appendix I
Guidelines on Arrest and Detention issued by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of
West Bengal15 The Eleven Commandments

We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all
cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee

14
Charles Shobraj v. Supdt., Jail, Tihar, AIR 1978 SC 1514
15
AIR 1997 SC 610
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.

(2) 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 atleast 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 also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date
of arrest.

(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station
or interrogation center 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.

(4) 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 or 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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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 the arrestee.

(8) 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
Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. Director, Health Services
should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well.

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent
to the illaqa Magistrate for his record.

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

(11) A police control room should be provided at all district 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.

37. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering
the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for
contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High
Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

Bibliography

1. Indian Constitutional Law, by M. P. Jain

2. Introduction to the Constitution of India, Dr. D.D. Basu
3. Shorter constitution of India, Dr. D.D. Basu
4. Constitution of India, V.N. Shukla
5. 10 Judgments that Changed India, Zia Mody