'Right To Sleep Is Basic Human Requirement', Says Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the right to sleep is a basic human requirement, which cannot be violated. The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Manjusha Deshpande made the observation in a plea filed by a senior citizen facing a probe in a money laundering case.
The plea was filed by 64-year-old Ram Issrani challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case.
What is the case
Issrani who was arrested in August 2023 claimed that his arrest was illegal and unwarranted as he had been cooperating with the probe and had appeared before the agency whenever he was issued summons.
In his plea, Issrani stated that on August 7, 2023, he appeared before the agency as per the summons issued, and he was questioned throughout the night and arrested in the case the next day.
Questioned till 3 am
As per the plea, Issrani was questioned till 3 am by ED officials.
The probe agency's counsel, Hiten Venegaonkar, submitted to the court that Issrani had consented to his statement being recorded through the night.
Can't deny right to sleep
"Voluntary or otherwise, we deprecate the manner in which the petitioner's statement was recorded so late in the night, which went on post midnight till 3.30 am," the court said.
"The 'right to sleep' / 'right to blink' is a basic human requirement, inasmuch as, non-providing of the same, violates a person's human rights," it observed.
Lack of sleep may affect cognitive skills
Lack of sleep affects a person's health and may impair his mental faculties, cognitive skills and so on, it said.
"The said person, so summoned, cannot be deprived of his basic human right i.e. right to sleep, by the agency, beyond a reasonable time. Statements must necessarily be recorded during earthly hours and not in the night when the person's cognitive skills may be impaired," the bench said.
The court noted that when a person is summoned for questioning, the investigating agency was yet to arrive at a "reason to believe" that the said person is guilty of an offence.
The bench also noted that the petitioner had appeared before the agency to record his statement in the past.
For more news and current affairs from around the world, please visit?Indiatimes News.
