By Aarushi Suvarna

Abstract

This article delves into the pressing issues of police brutality and accountability within India’s criminal justice system. Part 1 provides an in-depth examination of the extent of police brutality, citing prominent cases and alarming statistics on deaths in police custody. It explores the paradoxical support for the police among many Indians, often due to concerns about daily crime and fear of speaking out against law enforcement. Part 2 of the article explores the multifaceted landscape of police accountability measures in India. It outlines both internal and external accountability mechanisms, including the roles of state institutions, public bodies, and independent agencies. Recent developments, judicial oversight, and legal challenges are discussed, shedding light on the complexities of implementing accountability reforms.

Throughout the article, the persistent challenges in achieving comprehensive police accountability are highlighted, including the tension between law enforcement needs and civil liberties. The need for ongoing attention, collaboration between stakeholders, and a shared commitment to justice is underscored, emphasizing the attainability of a fair and responsible criminal justice system in India.

Introduction 

The custodial death of father and son, P. Jayaraj and J. Beniks, 58 and 31 respectively, garnered attention to the brutality habituated by the Police force, which was soon accompanied by protests in Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu. With blood dripping down their legs, large pieces of skin ripped off, and having suffered grave internal injuries from blunt objects being thrust into them, they pleaded to be bailed, soon after succumbing to the torture of custodial death. The encounter of the notorious gangster, Vikas Dubey in Uttar Pradesh, soon followed by the encounter deaths of four accused in the rape and murder case of a veterinarian in Hyderabad were extensively covered in the media. The mishandling of the Hathras Rape case and the police’s conduct in the Jamia case during the rallies against the Citizenship Amendment Act attracted greater attention to police abuse of human rights. The issue, however, happens to be the extent of legitimate, proportionate, and lawful use of force. Despite protests and calls for accountability, federal investigation masquerades their liability as they rarely result in punishments, and far fewer convictions.

“Protector has turned into a Murderer”. The idea that the law-abiding and protecting body, safeguarding individuals’ lives and liberties would be responsible for committing the biggest human rights violations would be juxtaposed to the very establishment in itself. According to statistics submitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) before the Rajya Sabha, the number of deaths in police custody has increased by approximately 60% in the previous three years and 75% in the last two years across the country. The statistics submitted with the response indicated that, while the number of such custodial fatalities in India had decreased for three consecutive years, from 146 in 2017-18 to 136 in 2018-19, then to 112 in 2019-20, and finally to 100 in 2020-21, it had risen sharply to 175 in 2021-22.

Even though there is overwhelming proof that the police have misused their authority, daily crime is typically seen by many Indians as the more urgent problem, and as a result, they frequently support the police. There is also apprehension in speaking out against the cops. In a study titled “Status of Policing in India Report 2018,” conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and the public policy NGO Common Cause, it was discovered that 44% of the 15,562 respondents had a moderate or high level of fear of the police. Many respondents also stated that they had personally known victims of police torture, firing, and baton charges. Long trials and low conviction rates are characteristics of India’s criminal justice system. In such a setting, police brutality is paradoxically frequently viewed as a quick cut to justice.

Arrested Persons and Police Accountability

Two fundamental principles stand as cornerstones of a just and equitable society amid the complicated web of law enforcement and criminal justice: police accountability and the rights of detained persons. In India, the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) is a crucial legal framework that oversees the arrest, imprisonment, and questioning of persons accused of criminal offenses. The difficult balance between guaranteeing public safety and protecting individual rights is maintained within this framework. The rights of detained people are codified in the CRPC, providing critical protection against arbitrary arrests and guaranteeing that everyone, regardless of alleged wrongdoing, is entitled to a fair and reasonable process.

The CrPC lays down the rights the authority of police to make arrests with and without warrant under various circumstances under section 41, whereas Section 43 allows private citizens to arrest someone who commits a cognizable or non-bailable criminal in their presence or deals with a proclaimed offender. Section 44(1) empowers Magistrates to arrest and detain anybody who witnesses an infraction. These rules encourage individuals and Magistrates to take prompt action in response to criminal activity. Additionally, females are given specific safeguards under Section 46(4), which prohibits arrest between sunset and morning, unless in rare circumstances. In such cases, a female police officer must make the arrest after filing a written report and seeking prior approval from the appropriate Judicial Magistrate of the First Class in the jurisdiction where the infraction occurred or where the arrest is planned. This clause prioritizes women’s safety and dignity throughout arrest proceedings, ensuring their rights are respected while allowing for required midnight arrests with proper protections. Section 46 of the CrPC emphasizes that a police officer must use the least amount of force required during an arrest and avoid causing any needless injury. It further states that if a woman is being detained, only a female police officer or a female medical practitioner may touch her during the arrest.  Section 151 of the CrPC empowers police officers to arrest someone without a warrant if they suspect the person of committing a cognizable offense. This is subject to the officer’s belief that the arrest is required to prevent the predicted offense. Similarly, Section 107 gives magistrates similar authority. It’s worth noting that these parts have attracted constitutional challenges owing to worries about the potential abuse of these powers. Critics believe that they are open to abuse and may infringe on people’s rights. The balance between law enforcement needs and civil liberties protection is still being debated and litigated.

When a person is arrested, he or she is brought into the custody of an authority authorized by law to hold the individual.  The individual is then asked to respond to the allegations leveled against him, and he is detained to ensure that no additional crime is committed. Individuals who have been arrested have rights and safeguards that are a hallmark of any just and democratic society. These rights protect not only the fundamental principles of justice, but also the dignity, safety, and human rights of people who are detained. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides optimism to arrested persons, who are on trial or have been convicted by requiring humane treatment in conformity with the law. According to Section 50(1) of the CrPC, an arrested person must be promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest in a language that they understand. They should also be informed of the exact offense for which they have been arrested. Section 50(2) stipulates that after being arrested, the accused person shall be advised of their right to be released on bail. This provision assists persons in exercising their right to seek bail if they are qualified. The CrPC provides the accused individual the right to speak with and be represented by a lawyer of their choice. This basic right is guaranteed under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution and Section 41(D) of the CrPC. The arrested individual has the right to stay silent and cannot be coerced into making self-incriminating comments as guaranteed under Section 20(3) of the Indian Constitution as upheld in the landmark judgment of Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani. According to Sections 57 and 76 of the CrPC, an accused individual has the right to be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours after arrest. This rule assures that the arrested individual is not improperly held and that he or she is quickly brought before a judicial authority. A person arrested under Section 54 of the CrPC has the right to a medical examination by a certified medical practitioner. This examination protects against physical abuse or ill-treatment during detention. Section 167 of the CrPC limits the length of custody without charge to a maximum of 15 days, subject to Magistrate approval. This article prohibits indefinite detention and requires investigative agencies to finish the necessary investigations within a reasonable time frame. Despite the provisions to safeguard, blatant violations have taken place due to poor implementation.

Author’s Bio

Aarushi Suvarna is a third-year law student at  Jindal Global Law School. Her areas of interest include Constitutional Law and Public International Law and has a keen interest in understanding the intersectionality of law, politics, and society. 

Image Source: https://www.newsclick.in/Katihar-Death-The-Never-Ending-Saga-Custodial-Violence