Rights of Arrested and Detained Person under International Law and Constitution of India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31305/rrijm.2025.v10.n3.021Keywords:
International Law, Constitution, Arrest, Detention Rights, UDHR, ICCPR, JudiciaryAbstract
The fundamental rights outlined in both the Indian Constitution and international law serves as the cornerstones for upholding and safeguarding the ideals of human rights. Arrest is a legal process that deprives someone of their personal freedom, which is universally recognised as a fundamental right. In order to preserve public order or national security, the executive branch may use preventative detention, which involves holding a person without accusation or trial. The study stresses the protections against arbitrary arrest and detention guaranteed by Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution, as well as the fundamental idea of the presumption of innocence. This article will look at the basic legal rules that govern administrative custody, remand detention, and arrest under both the Indian Constitution and international human rights law. Among other things, it will discuss in depth the rights of a person who has been denied their freedom to challenge the validity of that deprivation.
References
Prakash Singh & others v. Union of India and others, 2006 (8) SCC 1)
Aludomal v. Empror, AIR 1916 Sind 19
AIR 1953 SC 10
Wharton’s Law Lexicon 127 (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 15th ed., 2009) see also Bryan A. Garner (ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary 124 (Thomson Reuters, West, 2009)
Collins Dictionary available at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/detention; accessed on 12-10-24; see also Merriam- Webster Dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detention accessed on 12-10-24
B. Uma Devi, Arrest, Detention, and Criminal Justice System: A Study in the Context of the Constitution of India 1-2 (Oxford University Press, YMCA Library Building, 1 Jai Singh Road, New Delhi, 2012)
Vihaan Kumar v. The State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 162
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Study of the Right of Everyone to be Free from Arbitrary Arrest, Detention and Exile 62– 63 (United Nations, 1964)
John Hatchard, Individual Freedoms & State Security in the African Context: The Case of Zimbabwe (Ohio University Press, Sandra Dixon, 1993)
Claire Macken, Preventive Detention and the Right of Personal Liberty and Security under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. ) 26, Adelaide Law Review 1 (2005)
Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN doc. E/CN.4/1999/63
Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Article 3, Ibid
Article 5, Ibid
Article 7, Ibid
Article 8, Ibid
Article 9, Ibid
Article 10, Ibid
Article 11 (1), Ibid
Article 11 (2), Ibid
Article 2 (30 (b), The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966
Article 2 (30 (C), ibid
Article 6 (1), Ibid
Article 6 (2), Ibid
Article 6 (3), Ibid
Article 6 (4), Ibid
Article 6 (5), Ibid
Article 6 (6), Ibid
Article 7, Ibid
Article 9 (1), Ibid
Article 9 (2), Ibid
Article 9 (3), Ibid
Article 9 (4), Ibid
Article 9 (5), Ibid
Article 10 (1), Ibid
Article 10 (1) (a), Ibid
Article 10 (1) (b), Ibid
Article 10 (3), Ibid
Article 14, Ibid
Article 15, Ibid
Principle 5, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, 1988
Principle 6, bid
Principle 22, bid
Principle 24, bid
Principle 25, bid
Principle 26, bid
Gyanesh Rai and Anothers v. State of U.P. and Another. Criminal misc WP No - 11158 of 2015
Article 21, The Constitution of India, 1950
Ummu Sabeena v. State of Kerala - 2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC
Ibid
Law Commission of India, 177th Report on Law Relating to Arrest (2001).
Paul D. Reingold and Kimberly Thomas, “Wrong Turn on the Ex Post Facto Clause” VOL. 106, NO. 3, California Law Review 593 (June 2018)
Article 20 (1), The Constitution of India, 1950
R.C. Nigam, Law of Crimes in India 477 (Asia Publishing House, 1965)
Ian Dennis, “Rethinking Double Jeopardy: Justice and Finality in Criminal Process”, Crim. L.R. 993 (2000)
Daniel K. Mayers and Fletcher L.Yarbrough, “Bisvexari: New Trials and Successive Prosecutions”, Harv. L. Rev.74(1960)
Vijoy Vivekanandan, “The Conceptual Analysis of the Principle of Double Jeopardy and the Protection of Human Rights in Criminal Justice Administration” Volume 4 Issue 1 November, Dehradun Law Review (2012)
Dr. J.N.Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 239 (Central Law Agency, 52nd ed., 2015)
(1961) 2 S.C.R 10
SCR (3) 946
Simran Sahoo, “Protection of Right Against Self-Incrimination”, Volume II, Issue IV,
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law 6 (2022)
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Article 21, The Constitution of India, 1950 :Protection of life and personal liberty : ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law’
Dr. K.S. Rathore, “Role of Judicial Activism Towards Protection and Promotion of Constitutional Rights”, Vol. 97, Part – 1161, All India Reporter (Sep. 2010)
Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Bhatt, “Judicial Activism through Public Interest Litigation: Trends and Prospects”, Vol. XXV (1), Indian Bar Review (1998)
Dr. K. S. Rathore, “Procedure Established By Law Vis-À-Vis Due Process: An Overview of Right To Personal Liberty In India”. Available at http://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/Ch11.pdf ; accessed on 22-03-22
Supra note 62
See Vikas v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 321; District Registrar & Collector v. Canara Bank, AIR 2005 SC 186; Danial Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, AIR 1958 SC 376
Akhil Yadav and Devesh Shukla, “A Critical Analysis on Right to Fair Trial Under Indian Laws” Volume 12, Issue 4, International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts 650 (April 2024)
F.J. Curtis Doebbler, Introduction to International Human Rights Law 108 (CD Publishing 2006)
Black’s Law Dictionary 717 (Henry Campbell Black 11th Edition, 2019)
Order 33 Rule 9A Code of Civil Procedure 1908
Section 100A, Ibid
Order 11 Rule 13, Ibid
Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin AIR 1980 SC 470
Mahek Bhojwan, “Supreme Court on the Right to Fair Trial under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908” Vol. 1, Integral Law Review 15 (2022-2023)
AIR 1979 SC 1360
Wasif Rahman Khan, “Right to Fair Trial”, Volume 2 Issue 2, Burnished Law Journal 334 (2021)
(1991)3 SCC 655
AIR 1966 SC 1762
Kopal Tewari, “The Right To Fair Justice In India” Volume IV, Issue IV, Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law 110 (2024)
Saiyam Bansal, “Right to Fair Trial”, Volume 4, Issue 1, International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 1886 (2021)
Section 527, BNSS, 2023- No Judge or Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from his Court, try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself. Explanation.—A Judge or Magistrate shall not be deemed to be a party to, or personally interested in, any case by reason only that he is concerned therein in a public capacity, or by reason only that he has viewed the place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed, or any other place in which any other transaction material to the case is alleged to have occurred, and made an inquiry in connection with the case.
CRILJ441
AIR 1952 SC 75.
(1981) 3 SCC 610.
Upendra Bakshi, Right to Speedy Trial: Geese ,Gender and Judicial Sauce 243 (2nd ed. 1986)
Charls Sobhraj v. Suptd. Tihar Jail, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 1514
Section 56, the Prisons Act, 1894- Confinement in irons.—Whenever the Superintendent considers it necessary (with reference either to the state of the prison or the character of the prisoners) for the safe custody of any prisoners that they should be confined in irons, he may, subject to such rules and instructions as may be laid down by the Inspector General with the sanction of the State Government, so confine them.
AIR 1978 SC 1579
AIR 1980 SC 1535
AIR 1996 SC 2193
Prakash Singh & others v. Union of India and others, 2006 (8) SCC 1)
Article 22 (2), The Constitution of India, 1950
Surjeet Singh v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 359
Andrew Higgins, “Legal Aid and Access to Justice in England and India”, 26, National Law School of India Review 20 (2014)
Inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, S. 8, for cl. (f) (w.e.f. 3-1-1977).
Nishita Kirty, “Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid”, Volume 4, Issue 2, International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 1359 (2021)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
