S.N.D.T.

WOMEN’S UNIVERSITY,
LAW SCHOOL
A.Y. 2022-23

NAME OF THE STUDENT: S. ANUPRIYA

CLASS- 1st year L.L.B. Semester I

ROLL No.:36

TOPIC: CASE LAWS:

• D.K. Basu versus State of West Bengal
• Mrs. Maneka Gandhi versus The Union of
India
• Vishaka & Others versus State of Rajasthan

SUBJECT: LEGAL LANGUAGE, LEGAL WRITING &

GENERAL ENGLISH

SUBMITTED To: PROF. MS. NAZNEEN SHAIKH

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No. TITLE PAGE

No.
1 Acknowledgement 3

2 D.K. Basu Versus State of West Bengal 4

Case Details 4
Facts of the case 4
Issues Raised in the case 5
Contentions of the parties 5
Judgement 6
Conclusion 9
3 Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. The Union Of India 10
Case Details 10
Facts of the case 10
Issues Raised in the case 11
Contentions of the parties 12
Judgement 13
Conclusion 15
4 Vishaka & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 16
Case Details 16
Facts of the case 16
Issues Raised in the case 17
Contentions of the parties 18
Judgement 18
Conclusion 21
12 Bibliography 22

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to SNDT Women’s University, Law

School for providing this opportunity.

Further I would like to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to Ms.
Nazneen Shaikh Ma’am for providing me an opportunity and motivation to gain
knowledge through this project.

I thank my family and friends for their constant encouragement, love, and support
without which this project would not be possible. Last but not least I thank
almighty for giving me strength, knowledge, ability and opportunity to undertake
this work.

3
 1. D.K. BASU versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CASE DETAILS:

Citation (1997) 1 SCC 416: 1997 SCC (Cri) 92

Court Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Coram Justice Kuldip Singh, Justice AS Anand

Decided on December 18, 1996

Petitioner D.K. Basu

Union of India and State of West Bengal (and

Respondents
Others)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

DK Basu, The Executive Chairman, Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non- Political
organisation on 26.08.1986 addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India drawing his
attention to certain news items published in the Telegraph Newspaper regarding deaths
in police lock up and custody. He requested that the letter be treated as a Writ Petition
within the “Public Interest Litigation” Category. Considering the importance of the
issues raised in the letter, it was treated as a Writ Petition and notice was served to the
Respondents. While the Writ Petition was under consideration, one Mr. Ashok Kumar
Johri addressed a letter to the Chief Justice drawing his attention to the death of one
Mahesh Bihari of Pilkhana, Aligarh in Police Custody.

The same letter was also treated as a Writ Petition and was listed along with the Writ
Petition of D.K. Basu. On 14.08.1987, the Court made the Order issuing notices to all

4
the State Governments and notice was also issued to the Law Commission of India
requesting suitable suggestions within a period of two months.

In response to the notice, affidavits were filed by several states including West Bengal,
Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra and
Manipur. Further, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae
to assist the Court. All the Advocates appearing rendered useful assistance to the Court.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE:

• Growth in incidents of Custodial Torture and Deaths by Police.

• The arbitrariness of Policemen in arresting a person.
• Is there any need to specify some guidelines to make an arrest?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

Contentions of Petitioner:

• The petitioner argued that bodily pain and mental agony suffered by a person
within the four walls of a police station or confinement should be avoided.
Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the scope of trauma
experiences is beyond the scope of the law.

• The petitioner further argued that there is a need for a civilized nation and that
some important steps must be taken to eradicate it.

Contentions of Respondent:

The Counsel representing different states and Dr. AM Singhvi presented the case and
stated that “everything was fine” within their respective States, presented their
respective beliefs and provided useful assistance to this Court to examine various facets

5
of the problem and made sure that suggestions for the formulation of guidelines by this
court to reduce, if not prevent, violence in custody and the relatives of those who die in
custody due to torture.

In order to defend this important fall of the administrative wing, the State of West
Bengal made an attempt to convey that there are no deaths in the confinements and even
if there were any, then an investigation should be carried out on whoever did it.

JUDGEMENT:

Ratio Decidendi:

• When the right is guaranteed by the State, it is against the State that the remedy must
be sought if the constitutional obligation imposed has not been fulfilled.

• Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and has been held to
include the right to live with human dignity. It thus also includes a guarantee against
torture and assault by the State or its functionaries.

• Protection against arrest and detention is guaranteed by Article 22. It provides that
no individuals arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the
grounds of arrest and that arrested individual shall not be denied the right to consult
and defend themselves by a legal practitioner of their choice.

• Article 20 (3) provides that a person accused of an offence shall not be compelled
to be a witness against himself or herself.

Obiter Dicta:

• The Court was of the opinion that custodial violence, including torture and death in
lock-up, strikes at the rule of law. Custodial violence, including torture and death in

6
 prisons, was considered by the court to be one of the worst crimes in a civilized
society governed by the rule of law.

• The Court observed that despite the constitutional and statutory provisions aimed at
safeguarding the personal liberty and life of a citizen, the growing incidence of
torture and deaths in police custody has been a disturbing factor.

• Reference was made to the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) in
which the Supreme Court had held that prisoners and detainees are not deprived of
their Fundamental Rights under Article 21 and only the restriction permitted by law
could be imposed on the enjoyment of the Fundamental Rights of prisoners and
detained.

GUIDELINES ISSUED:

The Court issued a list of 11 guidelines in addition to the Constitutional and Statutory
Safeguards to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention.
The guidelines are as follows:

1. Police personnel who make the arrest and handle the interrogation of the arrested
person must wear precise, visible and clear identifications and identification labels
with their designations. Details of all personnel handling the interrogations of the
arrested person must be recorded in a register.

2. That the police officer making the arrest of the detainee will prepare a memorandum
of arrest at the time of the arrest and said memo will be witnessed by at least one
witness who may be a member of the family of the arrested person or a respectable
person from the locality from where the arrest is made. It must also be signed by the
detainee and must contain the time and date of the arrest.

7
3. A person who has been arrested or detained and is detained at a police station or
interrogation centre or other confinement, shall have the right to have a friend or
relative or other person known to him or who has an interest in his well-being will be
informed, as soon as possible, that he/they has/ have been arrested and is /are being
detained in a particular place unless the witness crediting the arrest memorandum is
himself a friend or relative of those arrested.

4. Police must notify a detainee’s time, place of detention, and place of custody where
he is being kept to the detainee’s next friend or relative living outside the district or
city through the District’s Legal Aid Organization and the station. Police of the
affected area should be telegraphically informed within the period of 8 to 12 hours
after the arrest.

5. The person arrested must be made aware of his right to have someone informed of
his arrest or detention as soon he is put under arrest or is detained.

6. An entry must be made in the Case 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 official in
whose custody the arrestee is.

7. Upon request, the Arrestee must also be examined at the time of his arrest and major
and minor injuries, if present on his body, must be recorded at that time. The
“Inspection Memo” must be signed by both the detainee and the arresting police
officer and a copy must be provided to the detainee.

8. The detainee must undergo a medical examination by a trained physician every 48

hours while in custody by a physician on the panel of approved physicians appointed
by the Director of Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned.

8
9. Copies of all documents, including the arrest memo, must be sent to the Magistrate
for registration.

10. The Arrestee may be allowed to meet with his attorney during the interrogation,
although not throughout the interrogation.

11. A Police Control Room must be provided at all central district and state offices, where
the arresting officer must communicate information about the arrest and the place of
custody of the arrested, within 12 hours after the arrest and in the Police Control
Room Board, must be displayed on a visible notice board.

CONCLUSION:

The case thus gave a landmark judgment where guidelines regarding the arrest of a person
were prescribed otherwise more offenses were committed in the name of doing justice. It
prevents any infringement with the rights of an individual during detention and thus
protects all the citizens by certain procedures established by law. Although now, the proper
procedure has been established by law and anyone who does contempt of court is liable to
be punished, still, there are crimes similar to those in the above case, for instance, police
officials refuse to file an FIR, or does something due to which many innocent people have
to suffer injustice and due to which there is infringement with the fundamental rights of the
citizens. Therefore, more strict laws should be made so that innocent people have not to
suffer.

In my opinion, before this case, the administration of the criminal system existing in a
country like India needed an effective mechanism. This case evolved as a landmark case
as the guidelines issued by the bench aimed to protect the people in custody. It is an
obligation of the State to protect the citizens; either they are accused of an offense or a
normal innocent person.

9
The law can’t be prejudicial in its approach and can’t deny basic rights like the right to
liberty, dignity to someone who is in the police custody.

Moreover, the torturous and cruel approach of police in dealing with arrestees required a
strong change. The Apex Court had to meddle in such a situation and the decisions taken
by the bench were absolutely appropriate and just.

2. MRS. MANEKA GANDHI Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

CASE DETAILS:

Citation (1978) AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

Court Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

M.Hameedullah, Y.V.Chandrachud, P.N.

Bench Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer & N.L. Untwalia,
S.M. Fazalal, & P.S. Kailasam. (7 judge bench)

Decided on January 25, 1978

Petitioner Maneka Gandhi

Respondents Union of India

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on the 1st of July 1976 under the erstwhile
Passport Act 1967. After three days of this issue, she received a letter dated 2nd
of July, 1977, from the Passport Officer regionally in charge in Delhi
communicating to her that it was decided by the Union government to impound
her passport under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act 1967 “in public interest”.

10
 The minister was told to surrender her passport within one week from the receipt
of that letter.

• A letter was addressed to the Regional Passport Officer by Maneka Gandhi with
a request to furnish a copy of the reasons for sending the order under the act. The
reply was sent by the Union Government, by the Ministry of Affairs on the 6th
of July 1977 stating the reason for impounding the passport is “in the interest of
the general public” and not to provide a copy of the list of reasons for the making
of the order. Maneka Gandhi, therefore, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India stating the seize of her passport as the violation of her
fundamental rights; specifically, Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right
to Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty)
guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE:

1. Whether the right to travel abroad is within the ambit of “personal liberty” asserted
in Article 21?

2. Whether any “procedure prescribed by law” which strips personal liberty under
Article21 is arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice or not?

3. Whether Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967 violates Article 14, 19, and 21?

4. Whether the order passed by Regional Passport Officer contravenes the principle of
natural justice?

11
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

Contentions of Petitioner:

• The right to go abroad is part of “personal liberty” within the meaning of that
expression as used in Article 21 and no one can be deprived of this right except
according to the procedure prescribed by law. There is no procedure prescribed
by the Passport Act, for impounding or revoking a Passport. Even if some
procedure can be traced in the said Act it is unreasonable and arbitrary in as much
as it does not provide for giving an opportunity to the holder of the Passport to
be heard against the making of the order.

• Section 10(3) (c) is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,
19(1) (a) and (g) and 21.

• The impugned order is made in contravention of the rules of natural justice and
is, therefore, null and void. The impugned order has effect of placing an
unreasonable restriction on the right of free speech and expression guaranteed to
the petitioner under Article 19(1) (a) as also on the right to carry on the profession
of a journalist conferred under Article 19 (1) (g).

• The impugned order could not consistently with Articles 19(1)(a) and (g)be
passed on a mere information of the Central Government that the presence of
the petitioner is likely to be required in connection with the proceedings before
the Commission of Inquiry.

• In order that a passport may be impounded under section 10 (3) (c) of the
Passports Act 1967, public interest must actually exist in present and the mere
likelihood of public interest arising in future would be no ground for impounding
the passport.

12
Contentions of Respondent:

• The respondent stated before the court that the passport was confiscated since
the petitioner had to appear before a government committee for a hearing.

• The respondent claimed that the word “law” in Article 21 could not be
understood as reflected in the basic rules of natural justice, emphasizing the
principles established in the A K Gopalan case.

• Article 21 contains “a procedure established under the law”, which does not have
to pass a reasonableness test, nor does it need to comply with the provisions of
Articles 14 and 19.

• The framers of our constitution had a long debate on “due process” in the United
States and “legal process” in the United Kingdom. India’s constitutional
provisions lack the due process of law, which clearly shows the legislator’s
intention.

JUDGEMENT:

This landmark judgment came on 25th January 1978 and changed the landscape of the
Constitution of India. This judgment expanded the scope of Article 21 exponentially and
this judgment truly & really made India a welfare state as promised in the Preamble.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Reliance was placed on the decision of A.D.M Jabalpur and Satwant Singh
Sawhney v. D. Ramaratham Assistant Passport Officer Government of India.

13
• The bench opined that “personal liberty” protected and guaranteed by Article
21 is very wide and comprehensive and it includes the right to travel abroad within
the ambit of personal liberty.

• While dealing with the issues of the grant, suspension, impounding, or cancellation
of passport of an individual, many aspects need to be considered, the dealing of the
particular individual with the authorities of other states, the activities which he has
undertaken some concerns regarding national security also arises.

• Therefore, the grant of discretionary powers to the executive cannot be considered

arbitrary and is an important power in the hands of the state to protect integrity.

• The orders passed under section 10(3) of the act should be established on some
material ground even reasonable apprehension originating from creditable sources
is sufficient cause.

• It is a well-settled principle it is the right of an individual to have a reasonable

opportunity to be heard.

• The bench opined that the Central government was entirely unjustified when they
withheld the explanations of the order from the petitioner and additionally was in
breach of statuary provision.

• They even did not provide the petitioner the reasonable opportunity to be heard
violating the principle of natural justice embedded in Audi alteram partem.

• When any action of the executive deprives or restricts the fundamental rights of any
entity, it is the responsibility to execute to proceed in such a manner which is not
arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair.

14
 CONCLUSION

The Maneka Gandhi case’s judgment was a balanced judgment and is one of the best
judgments that Indian Supreme Court has ever given. The judgment’s greatest feature
was the interlinking it established between the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21. By the
virtue of this link the court made these provisions inseparable and a single entity. Now
any procedure to be valid has to meet all the requirements mentioned under Article 14,
19 & 21. Therefore, it expanded the scope of personal liberty exponentially and
protected the constitutional and fundamental right to life to a great extent.

The judgment while saved the citizens from unquestionable actions of Executive also
saved the sanctity of Parliamentary law when it did not strike down Section 10(3)(c) &
10(5) of 1967 Act. The court also reminded the authorities to only rarely use the
prerogative of section 10(5) so as to satisfy that their actions were rational and well
thought. The court held that Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) is an administrative order
therefore, open to challenge on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonable, denial of natural
justice and ultra vires.

The judgment’s importance can be seen today also because the way in which the bench
construed Article 21 and expanded its horizons has given way for the resolving of
problems left unsolved by the Parliament. It’s quite evident that this judgment has
played an imperative role in construing Right to clean Air, Right to Clean Water, Right
to freedom from Noise Pollution, Speedy Trial, Standard Education, Fair Trial, Legal
Aid, Right to Livelihood, Right to Food, Right to Medical Care, Right to Clean
Environment etc., as a part of Right to Life & Personal liberty mentioned u/a 21.

15
 3. VISHAKA & ORS. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

CASE DETAILS:

Citation (1997) 6 SCC 241

Court Supreme court of India

Bench CJI J S Verma, Sujata V. Manohar, B. N. Kirpal

Decided on August 13, 1997

Petitioner VISHAKA & ORS

Respondents STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• In one of the villages of Rajasthan a program was initiated by the State

Government of Rajasthan to prevent the practice of Child marriage.

• Bhanwari Devi was a social worker associated with the same program. Being a
part of the protest, Bhanwari Devi tried to stop the child marriage of an infant in
one Ramkant Gujjar’s family. But despite much effort, she failed to stop that
child marriage.

• In 1992, with an intention to take revenge Ramkant Gujjar along with five
others had gang raped Bhanwari Devi in front of her husband.

• She was declined to get surveyed by a male doctor at a primary health center
and in Jaipur only the confirmation of her age was made without any
recommendation of rape in her medical report.

16
 • The concerned police authority dissuades her on filing a case against the
accused. But she didn’t lose hope and lodged a FIR against the accused.

• Despite all this, they were abused and ill-treated by the female police and
misbehaved even to an extent that she has demanded her lehenga for evidence.
She was clad only in the blood-soaked dhoti of her husband. Not only this, when
she thought it inappropriate to go out at night in this condition and requested to
spend the night in the police station, she was refused.

• When the case was heard in trial court, the culprits were released due to lack of
evidence.

• But with the determination to get justice for Bhanwari Devi a group of five
NGOs under the name of “Vishakha” filed a PIL in the, Supreme Court seeking
directions for the prevention of sexual harassment of women at workplace
through judicial process.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE:

• Whether the decision of the trial court in the Bhanwari Devi’s case violative of
her fundamental rights guaranteed to her under article 14, 15, 19(1) (g) and 21
of the Constitution of India.

• The other issue that the apex had to adjudicate was on the issue of gender
equality, and the issue of sexual harassment that women face at the workplace.

• Whether the employer has any role or responsibility in cases of sexual

harassment cases.

17
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

Contentions of the Petitioner:

• The petitioners filed a writ petition, seeking the writ of mandamus by the ‘Vishaka’
group consisting of various women’s rights activists, NGOs, and other social
activists. Their argument that the indecent acts of sexual harassment of women at
Workplace violate the fundamental rights contained under Article14, 15, 19(1)(g)
and 21 of the Constitution of India.

• The petitioners drew attention of the Hon’ble court to the existing loophole that the
legislation has regarding the provision of a safe working environment for women.
They requested the Hon’ble Court to frame guidelines for preventing sexual
harassment at Workplace.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents (with their consent)
in this case did something unusual i.e, supported the petitioners. The respondent assisted
the Hon’ble court in figuring out an effective method to curb sexual harassment and in
structuring the guidelines for the prevention of the same. Fali S. Nariman – the amicus
curiae of the Hon’ble court along with Ms. Naina Kapur and Ms. Meenakshi provided
assistance to the Hon’ble court in dealing with the said case.

JUDGEMENT:

Ratio Decidendi:

1. It is a fundamental right to carry any occupation, trade, or profession but the right
highly depends on the availability of a safe working environment. The Right to life
embedded in the Constitution of India encompasses the right to life with dignity.

18
 a. The fundamental responsibility of guaranteeing such safety and protection
of dignity is of the legislature and executive by enacting adequate legislation
and setting up a proper mechanism for the same.

b. After examining various judicial pronouncements and the relevant Article of

the Constitution court opined that gender equality is engrained in the
Constitution of India and protection from sexual harassment is main part the
of gender equality.

c. In absence of any specific legislation, the court under Article 32 has the
power to enforce any fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court framed the guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the Workplace,
known as Vishaka Guidelines. These guidelines were the foundation for The Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Vishakha Guidelines:

1. Employer or other answerable persons are bound to preclude such incidents from
happening. In the event of happening of such incidents the organization must consist
of mechanism to provide conciliatory and prosecutionary facilities.

2. Definition – For this purpose “Sexual harassment” means disagreeable sexually

determined behavior direct or indirect as:
• Physical contact and advances;
• A demand or request for sexual favours;
• Sexually coloured remarks;
• Showing pornography;
• Any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual
nature.

19
3. Every employer other than providing services under (1) is under an obligation to
• Expressly notify the prohibition of sexual harassment.
• The rules/regulations of govt. & public – sector bodies must include
rules/regulations prohibiting sexual harassment.
• The Standing Orders of the private employer made under Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 should include such provisions to
prohibit sexual harassment.
• The working conditions must be appropriate and not hostile to the woman
employees of the organization. Further, the female employees should feel a
sense of equality in the atmosphere.

4. When the offences committed are the one discussed under Indian Penal Code or any
other law, the employer is bound to start the prosecution with complaining to
appropriate authority. Further, the employee must provide the victim all sort of
protection while dealing with the complaints.

5. Appropriate Disciplinary Action shall be taken in case there is a violation of service

rules.

6. Irrespective of the fact that the particular act constitutes an offence under IPC or any
other law, the organization must have a redressal mechanism to deal with it.

7. The Complaint Committee must be headed by a woman and not less than half of the
members must be woman. For further assistance the committee shall also include
NGO’s or someone aware with such issues. The committee must be adequate in
providing relief to the victim with appropriate counseling facilities. An annual
report shall be submitted to the govt. by the committee informing the former of the
development regarding the said issue in the organization.

20
 8. An employee-employer meet shall be arranged where the workers shall be allowed
to raise issues of sexual harassment.

9. The employer shall take adequate steps in order to spread awareness about the social
evil.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of Vishaka & Ors vs State of Rajasthan led the court to once again upheld
the constitutional principles of equality and liberty. The judgment brought a ray of hope
among all the women workers who were facing severe sexual violence, harassment as
well as gender inequality prevailing in the then scenario. The Vishaka Guidelines
constituted the bedrock for the passage and enforcement of The Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The main objective of the Supreme Court was to prevent women from sexual harassment
at workplace and to end the gender inequality in order to enforce the Right to life and Right
to equality.

21
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Websites:

• Shri Dilip K. Basu vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 July, 2015
(indiankanoon.org);
• Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978 (indiankanoon.org);
• Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997
(indiankanoon.org);

Case Laws:

• D.K. BASU versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL (1997) 1 SCC 416: 1997 SCC (Cri)
92;
• MRS. MANEKA GANDHI Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA (1978) AIR 597, 1978 SCR
(2) 621
• VISHAKA & ORS. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS (1997) 6 SCC 241

Legislations:
• The Indian Constitution, Articles 14, 15, 19, 20(3), 21, 22.
• Section 10(3) of the Passport Act 1967.

22