LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Dilip K. Basu v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Writ Petition (Criminal) · Neutral citation not assigned (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 539 of 1986)Decided 24 Jul 2015
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 539 of 1986
Justice T.S. Thakur · Justice R. Banumathi

Background

This matter traces back to the landmark 1997 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal judgment, which laid down mandatory safeguards against custodial torture and deaths in police custody. Nearly two decades later, with implementation still incomplete, the Court-appointed Amicus Curiae, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, filed an application seeking a fresh round of specific directions, covering unformed State Human Rights Commissions, vacant Commission posts, unestablished Human Rights Courts, CCTV cameras in police stations and prisons, and related safeguards, after the States concerned were given a chance to respond.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that although Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 uses the permissive word "may" for setting up State Human Rights Commissions, this is a power coupled with a duty given the Act's object of protecting human rights, and directed the defaulting States/UTs (Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Tripura and Nagaland) to set up Commissions within six months. It further directed that existing and future vacancies in State Human Rights Commissions be filled within three months, that States consider setting up Human Rights Courts under Section 30 of the Act, that CCTV cameras be installed in all prisons within one to two years (and considered for police stations), that non-official visitors be appointed to inspect prisons and police stations, that prosecutions be launched wherever custodial death or injury is established, and that deployment of women constables be considered where needed. The applications were disposed of on these terms, with liberty reserved to revive the proceedings if needed in future.

Lesson Learnt

Even decades after a landmark Supreme Court ruling, courts can be approached again to force government compliance with directions that remain only partially implemented, and a statute's use of the word "may" does not let the State treat a human-rights safeguard as optional when the law's purpose requires it to act.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case