Shri Bodhisattwa Case

Case 3: Shri Bodhisattwa v. Subhra Chakraborty

A year later, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum in the case of Shri Bodhisattwa case. In this case, a man had cohabited with a woman by giving her a false assurance of marriage and had also got certain marriage ceremonies performed fraudulently. He had also committed the offence of miscarriage by compelling the woman to undergo abortion against her free will. The way the accused exploited the woman and abandoned her was nothing but an act of grave cruelty which has a serious effect on the woman’s health both mentally and physically. The Court said that the Right to Life includes all aspects of life which go on to make a life meaningful, complete and worth

Basu, lawyer and executive chairman of an NGO that provided legal aid services in West Bengal, wrote to the Chief Justice of India to draw his attention to several news articles reporting deaths in police custody. Basu later said that he wanted to ‘persuade the Chief Justice that violence, death, rape, assault and injuries in custody have become the rule of the government in police administration’. The Court took Basu’s letter as a writ petition and asked the Law Commission of India to suggest ways to tackle the situation. The Supreme Court looked at the issue of arrest procedure, custodial violence and compensation in depth and developed ‘custodial jurisprudence’. The judgment laid down principles for awarding compensation to victims of police atrocities. It also formulated means to ensure accountability of those responsible for such occurrences. The Court remarked that custodial torture was a naked violation of human dignity which was further aggravated when it was committed in a police station by those who were supposed to protect citizens. The case laid down specific guidelines that must be followed while arresting and interrogating suspects. These guidelines were based on Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provisions and are now a part of regulations laid down in police manuals and rule books. The failure to comply with these guidelines does not only render an officer liable for punishment through departmental action but also for contempt of court. The Court said that monetary compensation was an appropriate and effective way for redressal of infringement of fundamental rights of a citizen by public servants. The State was to be held vicariously liable for their acts. The quantum of compensation would depend on the facts of each case and no strait jacket formula could be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is in