Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
Supreme Court of India, 15 February 1983, 3 judges, 1983 AIR 378, 1983 SCR (2) 337, 1983 SCC (2) 96
Acting on a journalist's letter about custodial violence to women, the Court directed legal aid machinery for prisoners in Maharashtra and laid down safeguards for women suspects and all arrested persons in police lock ups.
Facts
Sheela Barse, a journalist, wrote to the Court that five of fifteen women prisoners she interviewed in the Bombay Central Jail said they had been assaulted by the police in the police lock up. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition and issued notice to the State and prison and police authorities. It also asked the Director of the College of Social Work, Nirmala Niketan, Bombay, to interview the women prisoners alone and report. The report showed that there was no adequate arrangement for legal assistance to women prisoners, and that two foreign women prisoners complained that a lawyer had misappropriated their belongings on the plea of fees. The Court did not inquire into the disputed allegations of torture but considered how women in police lock ups could be protected.
Questions before the Court
- What arrangements must be made to give legal assistance to prisoners, under-trial or convicted, in jails in Maharashtra?
- What safeguards should protect women suspects and other arrested persons in police lock ups against torture and ill-treatment?
What the Court held
- Legal assistance to a poor or indigent accused who is arrested and put in jeopardy of life or personal liberty is a constitutional imperative, mandated also by Articles 14 and 21. Legal assistance must be made available to prisoners in jails, whether under-trial or convicted.
- The Inspector General of Prisons was to issue a circular for lists of under-trial prisoners and of persons arrested on suspicion under Section 41 CrPC held beyond 15 days to be sent to District Legal Aid Committees, and for nominated lawyers to visit jails and interview prisoners within sight but out of hearing of jail officials.
- Female suspects must be kept in separate lock ups guarded by female constables, and interrogation of females must be carried out only in the presence of female police officers or constables.
- An arrested person must at once be told the grounds of arrest and of the right to seek bail. The nearest Legal Aid Committee and a relative or friend must be informed, Sessions Judges must make surprise visits to lock ups, and Magistrates must ask about torture and explain the right to medical examination under Section 54 CrPC.
Why it matters
The judgment, arising from a letter treated as a writ petition, treats legal aid to the poor accused as a constitutional requirement and turns it into concrete directions for jails. Its directions on separate lock ups for women, interrogation of women only in the presence of women officers, information to arrested persons, intimation to legal aid bodies and relatives, judicial inspection of lock ups and the Magistrate's inquiry about torture set out working safeguards for persons in police custody.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“legal assistance to a poor or indigent accused who is arrested and put in jeopardy of his life or personal liberty is a constitutional imperative mandated not only by Article 39 but also by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It is a necessary sine qua non of justice and where it is not provided, injustice is likely to result”
“We would direct that four or five police lock ups should be selected in reasonably good localities where only female suspects should be kept and they should be guarded by female constables. Female suspects should not be kept in police lock up in which male suspects are detained.”
“We have no doubt that if these directions which are being given by us are carried out both in letter and spirit, they will afford considerable protection to prisoners in police lock ups and save them from possible torture or ill-treatment.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 21, Constitution
- Article 14, Constitution
- Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 53 (NCRB correspondence table)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
- Case
- Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 1053-1054 of 1982
- Decided
- 15 February 1983
- Bench
- Bhagwati, P.N., Pathak, R.S., Sen, Amarendra Nath (J)
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by P.N. Bhagwati, J.
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.