Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a resolution passed by the Hailakandi Bar Association condemning the brutal assault leading to the death of undertrial prisoner Nurul Haque. The Supreme Court treated the resolution as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, directing the Director General of Police, Assam, to inquire into the matter. The Director General forwarded a report prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, A.K. Sinha Cassyap, which claimed that the deceased was not tortured in police custody and died while in judicial custody. The Court found the report unsatisfactory and misleading, noting that the post-mortem report indicated external injuries and that the explanation that the word 'not' had inadvertently appeared was not credible. Observing that the local police had taken a stand that the assault was by members of the public, making independent investigation impossible, the Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigation of CR Case No.275/93/FIR No.120/93 under Section 302 IPC. After the writ petition was disposed of, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Silchar reported that the then Superintendent of Police had submitted a false and fabricated affidavit/report to the Supreme Court and played a disdainful role against law and morality. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to A.K. Sinha Cassyap for criminal contempt. The facts found by the CBI showed that on 9 March 1993, Nurul Haque, a 35-year-old resident of Boalipar, was arrested by a police party led by Sub-Inspector Abdul Hye Choudhury. Although police claimed he was assaulted by the public during arrest, eyewitnesses did not notice any such assault. On 10 March, his relatives were not allowed to meet him. On 11 March, he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate with a prayer for 72 hours police remand and stated that he had been brutally beaten by police officials in lock-up. Medical examinations on 10 and 11 March recorded multiple abrasions and lacerated injuries, and he complained of being beaten by police. He was referred for X-ray but no X-ray was done. He was repeatedly taken to hospital, and on 13 March 1993 at 5.30 A.M. he died due to cardio-respiratory failure. The inquest noted eight injuries, swelling, and lacerations. The police registered a case under Section 302 IPC against unknown members of the public based on complaint by the same Sub-Inspector. The core legal issues were whether the police officer had committed criminal contempt by filing a false report and affidavit, whether the investigation should be transferred to an independent agency, and whether the medical evidence indicated custodial violence. The contemner claimed the word 'not' was inadvertently included and tendered apology. The CBI and Bar Association pointed to the false fabricated nature of the report and medical evidence contradicting police claims. The Court emphasized that senior police officers must exercise care and not mechanically forward subordinates' reports, found the explanation unsatisfactory, and directed CBI investigation to ensure public confidence. The available excerpt ends before the final order on the contempt notice.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation and Writ Jurisdiction - Article 32, Constitution of India, 1950 - Resolution of Bar Association on custodial death treated as writ petition - The Supreme Court, by order dated 20.08.1993, treated the copy of the resolution forwarded by the Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association as a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, directing the Director General of Police, Assam to inquire into the events leading to the death of undertrial prisoner Nurul Haque. Held that the serious nature of the complaint warranted such treatment and inquiry into alleged custodial violence (Paras 1-2). B) Criminal Law - Investigation by Independent Agency - Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Transfer of investigation to CBI - The local police at the highest level had taken a stand that the assault was by members of the public, making an independent and objective investigation by the State Police futile and undermining public confidence; therefore, the Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over investigation of CR Case No.275/93/FIR No.120/93 under Section 302 IPC, without being influenced by the FIR allegation against unknown public. Held that CBI should bring the real culprits to book (Paras 2-3). C) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Misleading Court by False/Fabricated Affidavit and Report - The Superintendent of Police, CBI, Silchar reported that the then Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, A.K. Sinha Cassyap, had submitted a false/fabricated affidavit/report to the Supreme Court and played a disdainful role against law and morality; consequently, a show cause notice was issued to him for criminal contempt, as the falsity of his report was evident. Held that filing such false report to cover up custodial death prima facie constituted criminal contempt of the Supreme Court (Paras 3-5). D) Police Administration - Duty of Senior Police Officers - Care in Forwarding Reports to Court - Not applicable - The explanation by the Superintendent of Police that the word 'not' had inadvertently appeared in his report and his apology were found unsatisfactory because deletion of 'not' would leave the sentence grammatically incorrect; the Court reminded senior police officers to show extra care while forwarding their comments and not mechanically forward information collected by subordinates. Held that the report was factually incorrect and misleading, undermining the confidence reposed in high office (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether A.K. Sinha Cassyap, Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, committed criminal contempt by filing a false and fabricated report and affidavit to mislead the Supreme Court about the custodial death of undertrial prisoner Nurul Haque; whether the investigation into the death should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation; and whether the medical evidence indicated torture in police custody.
Final Decision
The available text does not include the final decision on the contempt notice. The Supreme Court had earlier directed CBI investigation into the custodial death and issued a show cause notice to A.K. Sinha Cassyap for criminal contempt. The final order on the contempt notice is not extractable from the provided excerpt.
Law Points
- Article 32 can be invoked through a Bar Association resolution to inquire into custodial violence
- investigation may be transferred to CBI when local police credibility is compromised
- filing a false or fabricated affidavit before the Supreme Court constitutes criminal contempt
- senior police officers must not mechanically forward subordinates' reports and must ensure accuracy
- custodial death allegations require independent scrutiny
