Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

D. K Basu V State of West Bengal , 1997

By

 D.K Basu V State of West Bengal, 1997 ||Case Summary 


Introduction

In this Case, the Court laid down basic 'requirements' to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention as a measure to prevent Custodial Violence.

Court Order

  1. The Police Officer shall in cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41 A (1) issue notice, directing the person against whom reasonable suspicion exist, to appear before police officer. 
  2. Every Police Officer while making an arrest shall bear an visible identification as said in Section 41 B (a) of CRPC, 1973.
  3. As given in Section 41(B)(b) every Police Officer while making an arrest shall prepare a memo of arrest which shall be (i) attested by at least one witness (family member or respectable person), and (ii) countersigned by the person arrested.
  4. Arrested person have the right to inform his relatives or friends unless the memorandum is attested by the family of the person arrested as per Section 41(B)(C)
  5. The State Government shall establish a Police Control Room - (a) in every district, and (b) at State level as per Section 41(C)(1).
  6. The State Government shall display on the notice board kept outside the control room the name and address of the person arrested and the name and designation of the Police Officer who made the arrests as per Section 41 (C)(2) .
  7. On the time of arrest, person shall be examined by a Medical Officer in the service of Central or State Government, in case medical officer is not available on the time of arrest, he shall be examined soon after arrest as per Section 54(1).
  8. As per Section 41 D arrested person has right to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation. 
  9. The Control room at the Police Headquarter at the State level, shall collect from time to time details about the person arrested as given in the Section 41 (C) .
  10. Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest,  should be sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate for his record.
  11. During the detention, the arrestee should be subjected to Medical examination in every 48 hours by a trained doctor.
  12. The Court said failure of above  guideline will be consider Contempt of Court under Article 129 of the Constitution. 
  13. The requirement mentioned above shall be forward to the DGP and the Home Secretary of every State and U. T and the Court directed to forward the same to all the Police Station. 
  14. The Court also informed to broadcast on All India Radio such requirements which can help to curb custodial violence if not completely eliminate. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more