August 25, 2012

Courts of law or logic?


What is it that prevails inside the courtroom – law or logic? Those of you who are vigorous endorsers of the oneness between the constructs of law and logic may read no further because this writing is founded on the premise that a law may or may not benefit from logic and that is exists/perishes despite logic.

Because, the task of judges to pronounce judgments would not halt if counsels are reluctant to cite the law or are incompetent to apply minds to reach logical conclusions. So is it that the responsibility is fairly on judges to satisfy the needs of the litigants? I am afraid some judges are no better than illogical counsels, and in the matter of citing laws, are even worse. In other words, sentences had been, could be and would be passed whether or not counsels use law or logic or neither. I ask this question in support of my assertion: almost every trial has a verdict but is it true that every verdict has components of law or logic or both? To rephrase my question, is there not a tiny possibility that a verdict delivered in the past or to be read in the future has neither of the two? Those of you who think in the negative may read no further.

Legal system of any country is not based entirely on logic or reason and it is not unusual to find laws that are unreasonable and yet followed or implemented. Nor is it surprising to see judges trying hard to find answers to ‘hard cases’ by the use of logic or reason. But for brevity’s sake let us presuppose the application of logic to a given set of legal principles in order to reach a deliverable verdict. So far as the legal principles are concerned, we always have interpretations from both sides. Likewise, the person who has a better story to tell will get some extra points on the factual front. But ultimately the case has to lean in favor of that person who has a more convincing interpretation of the law and a strategic narration of facts.

But what is important to a trial is not convincing interpretation of the law or strategic narration of facts but the search of truth. However, for judges it is important to rest a case purely on logic if the circumstances so demand because one of the two stories is definitely an exaggeration or is partially true. But again a logical conclusion may or may not be a true and fair one. Logic does not make something right that is otherwise wrong. Therefore, to use logic as a solution to best interpret the law is in fact (and at times) discouraging truth. And what relief can judgments provide if there is no element of truth in them. Can we say that judges read verdicts on the basis of stories that are partially true and may or may not be logical?

July 15, 2012

Sony Entertainment’s Crime Patrol and legal awareness


I have no qualms with the way these shows are run on small screen but I have some interesting points to share with our readers about the widely viewed reality show Crime Patrol that airs on Sony Entertainment. Previously as a student of law and now as a lawyer I have always laughed off whenever producers of reality based crime shows have emphasized their contribution in creating awareness in the minds of the common people. I admit that people associated with these shows may or may not have the adequate legal knowledge or that they are not doing any disservice to the society in general by airing such shows.

But how on earth are they spreading awareness through shows that are primarily meant for entertainment purposes? Air a show for the right reasons, if you have to. I fail to understand where and how exactly ‘awareness’ is being spread in Crime Patrol? I spoke to my relatives and friends who allege to be avid viewers of Crime Patrol and the response on ‘awareness’ issue I got was this: the show depicts the odd circumstances in which a crime takes place and every episode teaches us a new lesson on how to limit our interaction with not only strangers but also with our own acquaintances. I am afraid I don’t see any point here.

If one observes the serial very closely, episode after episode, it will appear that in almost all episodes there is no peculiarity in the commission of a crime which is worth showing to the viewers. In other words, death of the victim has always occurred as a result of either strangulation or stabbing. Gun-related deaths or deaths by burning or drowning are also shown, but rarely. Again, the main purpose or the motive is usually threefold: land, wealth and women. I never came across something extremely unusual that had led to the commission of a crime. I was never shocked to see what I saw or the way it was shown. In other words, Crime Patrol show has not made this world a safer place for me to live in. So if people already know about the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of the crime, what is it that Crime Patrol seeks to beware us of?

Most of the episodes that I have watched did not ever televise a criminal trial. Nor have they shown a lawyer commenting on the facts/outcome of a case in hand. The show has always ended with a cautionary note (“jurm ki dastak ko gaur se suniye, jaane bach sakti hain”) from the host Anup Soni after the police have completed their interrogation and/or the suspects have confessed their crime. I am often tempted to ask this question: how many Indians believe in what the police have to say about a suspect? To rephrase my question, will we Indians even buy the prosecution’s story unless we have witnessed the crime ourselves or are directly affected by the crime/wrongdoing?

This is not a feeling of pride, I must say, but this is how the system works in India where people have lost even the slightest credence in police, and in some cases, in courts too. However, inside a courtroom where the examination of witnesses takes place, people are at least given a hearing where they can question/dispute the charge sheet of the police. If outcome of a trial is not shown, why do we even believe that the suspects have been convicted and/or are undergoing punishment for their guilt? And if conviction of the charge-sheeters has not taken place, can we assume that the story of the prosecution as shown on television is manipulated to fetch rating points?

Interestingly, in almost all episodes the mystery is solved and the suspects are caught, although most of the times (unfortunately) after the commission of the offence. This has left me in wonder, and for the obvious reasons. I do not doubt even for once the competence of the police in solving crime. But I am wondering, would people be not more cautioned if they are shown more cases of failure in arrests of the guilty than of success? Besides over-hyping police activity, Crime Patrol has something in store for some anti-social elements too. The show puts huge emphasis on the scientific tools used in the preparation and commission of a crime.

As a result, it also shows a great deal of police activity in locating these scientific tools to eventually trace the suspects. The combination of the two is often disturbing: people have started using Crime Patrol as a guidebook to real life crimes. Anyone who has watched a few episodes of Crime Patrol would, for instance, always wear gloves to avoid finger prints and wipe blood stains or other noticeable marks. Again, the use of mobile phones before, during or after the commission of a crime to communicate with accomplice(s)/victim(s) is also not favourable, and this is clearly evident to any viewer.

So do these reality/fiction crime shows have any impact on the legal profession too? I think so but correct me if I am wrong. These shows tend to put a great emphasis on several scientific techniques and their importance in crime solving. Never has there been an occasion where the crime was solved by the investigating officer without the use of these techniques, be it a phone or a huge test lab for identification purposes. In other words, direct circumstantial evidence accounts for only few arrests, if at all. This excessive reliance on scientific techniques as a means to crime solving may have a huge impact on lawyers and judges. Lawyers will try to adduce only scientific evidence in the court and, with the increase in this practice; judges will be reluctant to adjudicate in the absence of enough scientific materials.

June 21, 2012

The harsh reality of prostitution in India

Prostitution, they say, is a necessary evil that brings chaos in a family and blemishes the surroundings of the society where it is practiced. Some go to the extent of labeling prostitution as an epidemic ‘disease’ that requires to be eradicated from the society. But very few question the very existence of such practices. Prostitution has received a lot of attention, but for the wrong reasons. Today, for some, a sex worker on the streets is seen and regarded as a woman of questionable character who must be taken to task for corrupting the morals of the society. However, there are also those who see and regard sex workers as epitomes of self-survival and independence of mind and actions. Perhaps the division in public opinion is why the Indian laws have also shown double-standards in dealing with prostitution. The law as it stands today does not prohibit prostitution on the ground that it is not there to enforce human morals or ethics as they fall outside their jurisdiction. However, the laws do continue to keep checks and balances in regulating prostitution.

The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act introduced in the year 1956 defines ‘prostitution’ as the “sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes or for consideration in money or in any other kind”. Prostitution carried out in or in the vicinity of public place is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months. ‘Public place’ is defined as “any place intended for use by or accessible to, the public and includes any public conveyance”. Also, the law empowers the trafficking police officer to enter and search (without any warrant) the premises where an offence punishable under the Act is committed or is likely to be committed. The law does provide for timely rescue of victims and also lays down stringent provisions for the arrest and prosecution of those involved in trafficking business.

On an important note, the judiciary has extended its limbs towards this issue and the recent trend suggests that it has tilted in favour of regularizing prostitution. In the year 2011, while deciding upon an issue related to sex workers in India, the Supreme Court observed that, sex workers are also human beings and hence they are entitled to a life of dignity. And sex workers obviously cannot lead a life of dignity as long as they remain as sex workers”. Subsequently, a Committee was formed with an objective to frame suggestions for prevention of human trafficking, for rehabilitation of sex workers who want to leave their trade, and also for improving the conditions of those who want to continue with the profession. Commentators have also cautioned about this pro attitude of the Apex Court in providing support facilities to women to wish to continue in the sex-trade profession.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has made its intentions quite clear. In a recent order, the Court has categorically stated that it does not endorse prostitution in any manner, but rather is only concerned about the rehabilitation of sex workers. However, for some, the intention of the Court in providing support facilities to sex workers suggests the opposite. People have started questioning the need to institutionalize prostitution, and are at their wits end in comprehending how advancing support facilities to sex workers is different from institutionalizing the trade itself. Some suggest that rehabilitation measures are welcomed only to the extent they seek to restore the position and social status of the victims and not if they amount to removing of obstacles in the trade.

March 3, 2012

National Law Schools in India; challenges and future

Many students do not have any idea about what it is to be an average lawyer. Today, Indian law schools,
National University of Juridical Sciences
and in particular, the so called elite National Law Schools (offering five year integrated program), believe in the survival-of-the-fittest principle, and in this run for pride and fame, inevitably seem to be compensating on the quality of students and culture on campus. Law schools definitely hone research, drafting and the like. But civility?
These are the main issues that we shall discuss on today’s interview with Dr. Clarence Dias (International Center for Law in Development, New York); Advocate Protik Prokash Banerjee (Calcutta High Court); and Nishant Beniwal (Senior Associate, Trilegal, Delhi). The panel was chosen strategically to rubbish all claims of biasness, and to ensure that every field of law is properly represented viz. litigation, law firm work, and academics.  

Ashish Goel – Law professors in Indian law schools have little or no experience in law practice, be it as a consultant or litigator. I think a minimum of four-five years of litigation or consultancy experience must be the pre-requisite for a teaching position in a law university, so that the teachers can share their practical experiences and relate them to classroom coursework. Don’t you think this will help students appreciate the challenges that this profession will pose to them after graduation?

Dr. Clarence Dias: There are 2 key concepts here: experience and the practice of law. Experience, most importantly, not just in the school of law; but in the school of life. Practice of law as a concept that subsumes and transcends “law practice” in litigation or consultancy. Both such concepts are essential for becoming a law professor. But it is a mistake to prescribe a time period of “four or five years”. What counts is the quality of the experience and not the quantity.
An important opportunity to gain such quality experience can come while one is a lecturer or reader. So, at the entry level into law teaching, it is unrealistic to require such experience. But if we have come to live with the “publish or perish principle” surely we are ready to require a “no room for ostriches principle” which eschews both burying one’s head in the sand as well as burying one’s head in the law books.
There are many ways to experience law: as plaintiff, defendant, victim, violator, lawyer, prosecutor, law enforcer or judge. Quality experience is a composite of all such ways of experiencing law.
Similarly, there are many ways of practicing law of which being advocate, solicitor or judge are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Law is importantly practiced in many places other than the court room: in self-determination struggles, in independence movements, in constitution-making processes that follow, in struggles against exploitation, exclusion, discrimination and marginalizing to name but a few. What unites these diverse practices of law is the common pursuit of justice through the rule of law and the reign of justice.
In sum, it is important that life be brought into the law classrooms so that truly “those who have less in life, shall have more in law”. A Professor of law must not only profess, but also practice and propagate the cherished principle of “and justice for all”.

Ashish Goel – My personal experiences as a law student at one of the best law schools in India forced me to believe that a majority of students go gaga over moot competitions and debates. According to me, and observing from the way these moots and debates are conducted, students invariably get swayed by only one factor – victory. This implies that the case has to be won and the client be freed from legal wires – by hook or by crook. Isn’t victory-driven research winning over the moral obligations to work towards reforming clients? Do you think such experiences in law school add up to a bad lawyer, resulting into diminishing moral standards with every successful case in real life?

Nishant Beniwal: I am not sure, if one has to only blame competitions and this victory at any cost approach for the apparent decline in moral standards, though this apparent desire to succeed may be a factor. What I think is that in any event on the whole there is been a moral decline in society, so why wouldn't the legal profession not be affected, especially since it is a profession that cannot be insulated from society, say like the Army. What is happening is that we as a society seem to be moving from a means and ends based approach to an ends only one. This is thereby leading to the instances that you have termed as victory by 'hook or crook'.
Gandhi had an interesting take on this, he used to say 'means are, after all, everything'. And to explain, he used the following example, which I think is extreme well thought out, he said; 'If I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it; if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay for it; and if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it; and, according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own property, or a donation.' Unfortunately, in what may be a race towards success, we seem to have forgotten such lessons. 
In my opinion the main driving force for a lawyer should be 'justice'. So the question needs to be as to what role can law schools play in ensuring that 'justice' becomes the fulcrum of a good legal education. I think if that goal is kept in mind things will sort themselves out eventually. What law schools need to emphasize is that achieving justice is the ultimate goal of the practice of law. What we require is therefore, justice education and not just legal education. For this, we need to include courses on law and poverty, law and development, etc., sensitize students on social realities and also what should be their role as lawyers in society. The integrated law school experiment was started with this in mind, integrating social sciences into legal studies and churning out 'social engineers' and not lawyers. Clearly, at this stage, the experiment does not seem to be achieving its desired result. But, that does not mean that we should give up hope just yet.

Ashish Goel – As an established lawyer, what is it that you think law schools must institutionalize in order to take a more humanistic approach to legal education? Meaning, should legal education not emphasize on learning and unlearning through group discussions with less hullabaloo on attendance and grades. Moreover, please enlighten us on the importance of extra-curricular activities, especially mooting and publications, in a post-law-school scenario and on those lines, tell us if there is a better way to spend time in those vital 5 years at law school.  

Protik Prokash Banerjee: Law-school professors, unless they have had at least 10 years’ experience in a Court with an active practice, hardly know enough procedural law and how it works in practice to help a law student learn how to practise law, whether as an advocate, an associate in a law firm, a human rights activist or a law officer in the government, industry or even as a judge.
I agree with you that legal education should put less emphasis on attendance, and no importance at all on grades except between passing and failing.  What is required is daily internship at different levels of the hierarchy of courts and law firms and the industry, with mandatory judicial clerkship and NGOs for a term, so that the practical aspect of being a lawyer (in the widest and American sense of the term, where anyone who earns his livelihood through law is referred to as a lawyer) is drilled into the student alongwith the theory. 
Law students must be encouraged to read, a vanishing art.  Most law students do last moment cramming for the exams and live it up the rest of the year.  This is not the way to learn law.  This may help in getting good grades and CGPA or whatever and making yourself look good in the curriculum vitae, but it does not make you a good lawyer.
I would suggest, that the best way to utilize law school is to attend Courts and intern at those places I wrote about earlier, and have minimal classes where the doubts of the students was clarified, but lots of assignments (home work) for the student to complete wherever he wants; he may use the law school library, the chambers of the Senior or the office of the law firm or the Non Governmental Organization or the industry, or even his home.  I would in fact insist that there be no pure theory questions at all.  All law school examinations should have a certain number of problems and subjective answers through which the student would show his “understanding” of the law and how to apply it in a given situation, rather than test his ability to cram and vomit what he has crammed on the answer-script, so that his performance in artificial circumstances does not define his ability.
Mooting does not really help one to learn the practical pit falls of advocacy or arguing before a court or tribunal or even an authority.  Firstly to be a practising advocate, a student must make the transition from academics to the real life cut and thrust of litigation.  That means knowing the law or where to find the law, knowing how to research, learning how to draft pleadings and notices and documents effectively and precisely, learning court craft and learning how to argue.  While law school, even in its present incarnations teach the first three very well, without attending courts or tribunals where you watch both the masters of the profession and the monsters, you will never learn court craft or the art of arguments.  Drafting pleadings require intense interaction with a professional lawyer who is good at what he does. It requires a clarity of mind, an ability to grasp the essentials and marshal the facts (a technical phrase which means arranging the facts in the best order that would present your client’s case most effectively—at least two superlatives—so that anyone considering the facts in that order must incline towards your client’s position).  I have found no law school which has the faculty to teach how to draft and most law school graduates that I have come across, whether personally or through their drafts, even after five years of practising law or working in a law firm, have abysmal drafting skills.
So I guess the open-system that I have advocated, is what would make better lawyers than we or our previous generations have ever been.  

February 8, 2012

Indian Case Laws on Death Penalty post 1998


  1. Kishori v. State of Delhi, (1999) 1 SCC 148
  2. Kumudi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 1699
  3. Mahendra Nath Das v. State of Assam, 1999 (3) SCALE 700
  4. Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 670
  5. Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 19
  6. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Molai, 1999 (105) CrLJ 2698 (M.P.)
  7. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Tantoo, 1999 (105) CrLJ 2913 (M.P.)
  8. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dharmendra Singh, (1999) 8 SCC 325
  9. Mohd. Chaman v. State, (2001) 2 SCC 28
  10. Raju v. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 2043
  11. Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 5 SCC 203
  12. Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76
  13. Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 293
  14. V Mohini Giri v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 642
  15. Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, (2003) 5 SCC 590
  16. Gurudev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 4187
  17. Devendra Pal Singh v. State, NCT of Delhi, (2002) 5 SCC 234
  18. Dharamendrasinh v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 4 SCC 679
  19. Rajpara v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 9 SCC 18
  20. Ram Anup Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 3006
  21. Vashram Narshibhai Rajpara v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 SC 2211
  22. Ram Pal v. State of U.P., (2003) 7 SCC 141
  23. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble, (2003) 7 SCC 749
  24. State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram, (2003) 7 SC 419
  25. Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2004 SC 394
  26. Rahul alias Raosaheb v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 10 SCC 322
  27. Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 2006 (13) SCLAE 467
  28. Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2009 (11) SC 47
  29. Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 132
  30. Bablu alias Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2007 SC 697
  31. Ram Singh v. Sonia and others, AIR 2007 SC 1218
  32. Sushil Mumu v. State of Jharkhand, 2007
  33. Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2008) 4 SCC 434
  34. Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 3040
  35. Murly Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 3040
  36. State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar, JT 2008 (7) SC 66
  37. Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra, 2009, available at
  38. Haru Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, JT 2009 (11) SC 240
  39. Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 6 SCC 692
  40. Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 5 SCC 740
  41. Santosh Beriyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498
  42. Sebastian v. State of Kerela, 2009, available at
  43. State of Maharashtra v. Prakash Sakha Vasave, 2009 (1) SCALE 713
  44. Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2009 STPL (Web) 4 SC, available at
  45. Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2010 SC 361
  46. Mulla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010, available at
  47. Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1007
Acknowledgment: The cases were collected as a part of the research conducted for Professor Manoj K. Sinha, Professor of Law, National University of Juridical Sciences, India. 

February 7, 2012

Custodial Torture; Some Journal Articles from 1995-2010


  1. SAHRDC, ‘The Ferreira Case: All that is Wrong with Torture and Narcoanalysis’, Economic and Political Weekly, May 22, 2010 available online at
  2. Satabdi Chatterjee, ‘Miseries of Custodial Violence: Is Our Law Equipped Enough?’, Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 115, Part. 1312, April 2009, at page 103
  3. Tobias Kelly, ‘UN Committee Against Torture: Human Rights Monitoring and Legal Recognition of Cruelty’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3, August 2009 at page 777
  4. Ajai Kumar, ‘Torture: A Formidable Fhallenge’, Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 114, Part. 1301, May 2008 at page 125
  5. Manik Chakraborty, ‘Human Rights and Custodial Torture: The Issues and Challenges’, Calcutta Law Times, Vol. 1, Part. 2, February 2007 at page 28
  6. Anuradha Chadha, ‘Human Rights and Custodial Deaths’, Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 112, Part. 1273, January 2006 at page J9
  7. Ashirbani Dutta, ‘Approach of Indian Judiciary Towards Custodial Torture’, Calcutta Law Times, Vol. 2, Part. 4, August 2006, at page J33
  8. Deepti Shrivastava, ‘Torture in Prisons’, Indian Journal of Criminology and Criminalistics, Vol. 27, No. 3, September – December 2006 at page 27
  9. Ashirbani Dutta, ‘Custodial Torture: A Shameless Truth Behind the Bars’, Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 112, Part. 1282, October 2006 at page 241
  10. Yousuf Bhatt, ‘Menace of torture: Prohibition in International Law’, Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol.67(3), 2006 at page 553
  11. Maryam Bacha, ‘Third Degree Torture: State Terrorism to Combat other forms of Terrorism’, Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 111, Part. 1261, January 2005, at page J1
  12. A G Noorani, ‘Access to Prisons and Custodial Torture’, Economic and Political Weekly, October 15, 2005
  13. N K Indrayan, ‘Remedies Against Custodial Harassment by the Police’, Supreme Court Journal, Vol. 8, Part. 50, December 2005, at page J47
  14. S K Verma, ‘Medical, Legal and Ethical Aspects of Torture and Human Rights Violation’, Indian Journal of Criminology and Criminalities, Vol. 25, No. 1-3, January – December 2004, at page 134
  15. Raj Kumar, ‘State Torture in India: Strategies for Resistance and Reparation’, Australian Journal of Asian Law, 5, 162-63, 2003
  16. Joginder Singh, ‘Third Degree Violates Human Rights’, Civil and Military Law Journal, Vol. 39, 2003 at page 143
  17. K P Singh, ‘Police Custody Death Syndromes and Police Predicament: A New Debate’, Indian Police Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2, April- June 2003 at page 101
  18. J S Bisht, ‘Custodial Torture: An Invasion to Right to Life’, Indian Bar Review, Vol.30, Part. 2 & 3, April- September 2003 at page 329
  19. Surendra Jaswal, ‘Custodial Crimes – An Affront to Human Dignity’, Indian Bar Review, Vol. 30, Part. 2 & 3, April – September 2003, at page 255
  20. K Ravindran, ‘Custodial Violence and Measures to Curb’, PRP Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 7, No. 8, January – March, 2002 at page 7
  21. Balvinder Kumar, ‘Protection Against Torture by Police’, PRP Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 6, No. 4, October – December, 2002 at page 12
  22. Jayanth Bhushan, ‘Custodial Violence – A Gruesome Practice’, Indian Bar Review, Vol. 28, Part. 1, January – March 2001, at page 99
  23. Archana Sinha, ‘Torture is a Challenge to the Administration of Justice’, PRP Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 5, No. 2, April – June 2001, at page 34
  24. Anupama Rao, ‘Problems of Violence States of Terror: Torture in Colonial India’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 13, October – November 2001 at page 1125
  25. B N Chattoraj, ‘Torture and Violence in Police and Judicial Custody in India’, Indian Journal of Criminology and Criminalistics, Vol. 22, No. 3, September – December 2001, at page 17
  26. Sumanta Banerjee, ‘Torture in Custody: Method in Sadistic Madness’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 9, March 2001 at page 723
  27. Sudesh Sharma, ‘Human Rights, Police and Custodial Violence: A Perspective’, MDU Law Journal, Vol. 5, 2000 at page 40
  28. Subhah Raina, ‘Custodial Torture’, National Capital Law Journal, Vol. 5, 2000, at page 1
  29. Sreeramulu, ‘Lockup Deaths and Harassment by the Police’, Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 106, Part. 1210, October 2000, at page J149
  30. Subramanyam, ‘Right Against Torture: A Review’, Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 106, Part. 1212, December 2000, at page J177
  31. Nirman Arora, ‘Custodial Torture in Police Stations in India: A Radical Assessment’, Journal of Indian Law Institute, Vol. 41, No. 3-4, July – December 1999, at page 513
  32. A G Noorani, ‘Accountability for Torture’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No. 45, November 1999 at page 3159
  33. A S Anand, ‘VIIIth International Symposium on Torture’, Supreme Court Cases, Vol. 7, Part. 3, November 1999, at page J10.
  34. B M Baliga, ‘Curbing Police Arrest Power for Minimizing Custodial Deaths’, Indian Law Reports, Karnataka, Vol.46, Part. 13, July 1996, at page 67

Acknowledgment: The articles were collected as a part of the research conducted for Professor Manoj K. Sinha, Professor of Law, National University of Juridical Sciences, India.