Jaspal Singh vs State Of U.P.
- SCC1995 Supp (3) SCC 234
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a person is brought before a court for purposes of production and police personnel use violence against that person within the precincts of the court, this constitutes a serious violation of human rights, the rule of law, and the supremacy of judicial authority, and the court has the power to direct the head of the police organization concerned to appear before it to answer for such misconduct and to direct that the names of the offending officers be provided so that appropriate action may be taken against them.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. We have heard Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Altar Ahmad, learned Addl. Solicitor General for the respondent.
2. It would appear that pursuant to the directions of this Court issued on Friday, the Police brought the detenu Satish to the Court to be produced before this Court. It is stated by Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned Counsel for the petitioner that upon the sight of the pitiable physical state of Satish, his mother broke down and a few learned Counsels of this Court expressed grave concern at the sight which they claimed to have witnessed that Satish was beaten up and manhandled by the Police just outside the Court-hall within the precincts of the Supreme Court.
3. If this is true, this situation is quite serious. We, therefore, direct learned Addl. Solicitor General to meet the learned Counsel who made the oral statements before the Court and make an appropriate submission as to what course of action should be taken. If a person is brought to the Court for purposes of production before Court and the Police use violence against him within the precincts of the Supreme Court or any court for that matter, the situation can only be described as alarming. These Policemen have absolutely no conception of human rights, rule of law and the supremacy of the judicial authority. We direct the Head of the Police Organisation concerned, namely CBI in this case, to be present in Court at 2.00 PM so as to be answerable on behalf of his institution to this Court.
4. The Additional Solicitor General, upon his enquiry with the learned Counsel, shall mention the names of the Police Officers who had so misbehaved so that appropriate and immediate action could be taken against them.
5. In the meanwhile, the Registrar General of this Court will take Satish into his custody, produce him before the Doctor in the Supreme Court infirmary and get a medical certificate as to his physical condition from the Doctor to be produced before us at 2 P.M. Until further orders, Satish will remain in the custody of the registrar general of this Court.
6. The Home Secretary, Union of India and the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation shall be present in Court at 2 P.M.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free