Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tushar Ravishankar's Entry For Essay Competition
Tushar Ravishankar's Entry For Essay Competition
Custodialdeaths:aFaitAccompliorGrossinjustice.
Theessayseekstounderstandthevariousnuancesassociatedwithcustodialviolence
ofthearrestedindividualsunlawfullydetainedorarrested.Thepaperprovidesboththe
legislationandprecedenceinrelationtotherights,powers,anddutiesofthepolice
officersinthedischargeoftheirduties,moresorelatedtotheduecareanddiligence
requiredbythepoliceofficersintheexerciseoftheirduties.Thepaperalsoconductsa
comparativelawanalysisbetweenthelegalsystemsoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica
andIndialookingatthejurisprudentialaspectsrelatedtotheunlawfularrestof
detainees,therighttoseekremedyastoameansofdeterrence,andthevarious
mechanismsthatarerequiredtocombattheproblemofCustodialViolence.The
landmarkjudgmentsofNilabatiBeheravstheStateofOrissa,RudulSahvsStateofBihar,D.K
BasuvsStateofWestBengalarealsoassessedontheirmeritsanddemeritsaswellasseveral
LandmarkU.SJudgementssuchastheMirandacaseandtheRodneyKingcase.TheICCPR
whichIndiaaccededto,isalsoutilizedinunderstandingthevariousmodulationsthatoccur
whenitcomestoconservationoftherightsinthedetentionorarrestofanyindividual.
PoliceExcess:AFaitAccompliorGrossInjustice
Introduction
OnJune18,1980,a6-months-pregnantwomanwastravelingfromNewDelhitoUPwithher
husbandandfriendsinataxi.Fortykilometersintotheirjourney,theyhadaflattireandhad
stoppedinBaghpatdistrict.Ishwar(husband)wasmakingarrangementstofixthetirewhentwo
plain-clothedofficersfromtheBaghpatpolicestationstartedsexuallyharassingthewoman.
Ishwarandhisfriendsintervenedandascufflebrokeout.Theplain-clothedofficersrantothe
policestationshouting“Dacoits!Dacoits!”.Thisprompted10policeofficersfromthatstationto
comewiththeirriflesandruthlesslyshootIshwarandhisfriendsdead.Theythenhauledthe
pregnantwomanoutofthecar,strippedhernaked,anddraggedher75meterstothepolice
station,whereforthenexttwodaystheybrutallyassaultedher.1 ThisisthestoryofMayaTyagi.
Thisstoryisunfortunatelynotauniqueone.Policeexcesswhetherit’sinrelationtocustodial
deathsorharassmentorintimidationofvictims/witnessesisaphenomenonthatisnotjust
pervasiveintheIndianethosbutreverberatesacrossthesocio-politicalspectrumofIndian
affairs.
TheConstitutionofIndiaunderArticles20,21and22providesfortherightsavailableto
detaineesinthecustodyofthepoliceandimposesadutyuponthepolicetoundertakedue
diligenceintheexerciseoftheirstatutorypower.However,boththelegislativeandprecedence
authorityoflawhasnotemanatedthroughtheranksofthepolicingsysteminIndia.Custodial
deathsandothersortsofinhumanetreatmentarestillmetedoutbythepoliceonadailybasis..
Theunbridledpowersenjoyedbypoliceisthemaincauseforconcernwhichnotonlycreatesa
terriblefearinthemindsofthepublicbutalsoalienatesthepublicfromthepolice.2 Thiswould
inevitablyleadthegeneralpublictohavecontemptfortheLaw,possiblyleadingtoanarchyand
1
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/economy/story/19951231-policemen-are-my-enemy.-my-blood-still-b
oils-when-i-see-one.-754568-1995-12-31
2
T
hisextractistakenfromB
ookReview:TortureandRapeinPoliceCustody(AnAnalysis),
6StudAdv(1994)161atpage162
publicdisorder.
It’sundisputedthatthepowersassignedtothepoliceintheengagementoftheirstatutoryduties
mustbebalancedwithchecksandbalancesmoresofromthepublicaccountabilitystandpoint,
butisthecurrentsetupofcounterbalanceaseffectiveincombatingcustodialviolence?
Ingeneral,themethodsofaccountabilityofpolicinginIndiacanbethroughanInternal
assessmentofthecircumstancevisavisthroughSection7oftheIndianPoliceAct,18613.The
actclarifiesontheA
ppointment,dismissal,etc.,ofinferiorofficerswhichcouldinclude
dismissal,suspensionorreductionofanypolice-officerofthesubordinaterankswhentheyare
negligentinthedischargeoftheirduty,orunfitforthesamewhichistobereadwithSection23
andSection29oftheaforementionedact.Section23oftheIPA,1961statesthatthe
apprehensionofallpersonswhomthepoliceofficerislegallyauthorizedtoapprehend,must
havesufficientgroundstoapprehendtheperson4.Section29dealswiththePenaltiesforneglect
ofduty,etc.whereinapolice-officerwhoshallbeguiltyofanyviolationofdutyorwilfulbreach
orneglectofanyruleorregulationorlawfulordermadebycompetentauthorityshallbeliable,
onconvictionbeforeaMagistrate,toapenaltynotexceedingthreemonthspay,orto
imprisonmentwithorwithouthardlabour,foraperiodnotexceedingthreemonths,ortoboth.5
Thereforeitismadepertinentlyclearthroughvariouslegislativedocumentsthatthepolicemust
exercisecautionintheexerciseoftheirduties,andthatintheeventofanymisconductor
negligence,theofficersinvolvedmustbeheldresponsiblefortheiractionsandtheremustbe
punitiveactionstakenagainstthem.
Butwhatexistsintheoryisafarcryfromthepracticalrealitiesofwhattendstooccurinthe
eventofagrossinjusticecommittedbythepolicingmechanismofastate.Inmost
3
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00038_186105_1523266889428§ionI
d=46937§ionno=7&orderno=7
4
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00038_186105_1523266889428§ionI
d=46954§ionno=23&orderno=24
5
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00038_186105_1523266889428§ionI
d=46960§ionno=29&orderno=30
circumstances,fromaninternalaccountabilitystandpoint,themajorityoftheofficersgetaslap
onthewristandinevitablyreturntoserviceafterabriefperiodoftheirsuspension.Thispractice
wouldasamatterofcourseemboldenthepolicetofurtherengageinsuchactionsandwould
defeatthepurposeofpublicaccountability.
Comparativeanalysis
TheUnitedStatesofAmericahasbecomeinfamousforitspolicingsystemespeciallyafterthe
recentdeathsofGeorgeFloydandBreonnaTaylor.However,therecourseitofferstovictimsof
statemisconductbothfromalegislativeandprecedencestandpointismoreadvancedin
comparisontotheIndianLegalSystem.TheBillofRights6 whichcomprisesofthefirst10
amendmentstotheU.SConstitutionencapsulatesseveralcivilrightsandlibertiesthatare
enjoyedbyU.SCitizensnotwithstandingtherighttoafairandspeedytrial7,thebarringofany
sortofcruelandunusualpunishment8 andtherighttobeinformedofthecriminalchargesheld
againstthem.ThisisfurtherpropoundedbyseverallandmarkjudgementssuchastheM
irandav.
Arizona(1966),wheretheSupremeCourtruledthatdetainedcriminalsuspects,priortopolice
questioning,mustbeinformedoftheirconstitutionalrighttoanattorneyandagainst
self-incrimination9.Thisactsasaneffectivemethodofcombatingpoliceexcessandkeepsthem
inlinewiththeirstatutoryduties.Insituationswherethereispoliceexcess,thevictimsofpolice
brutalitycanexercisetheircivilremedyforcompensationthrough42U.S.Code,section1983,
therelevantfederalcivilstatutethroughwhichindividualsmayfilelawsuitsagainstthe
offendingofficer,departmentorjurisdiction.10
Itstates:
“Anypersonwho,undercolorofanystatute,ordinance,regulation,custom,orusage,ofany
StateorTerritoryortheDistrictofColumbia,subjectsorcausestobesubjected,anycitizenof
theUnitedStatesorotherpersonwithinthejurisdictionthereoftothedeprivationofanyrights,
6
h
ttps://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say
7
6thAmendmentofUSConstitution
8
8thAmendmentofUSConstitution
9
h ttps://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
10
h
ttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
privileges,orimmunitiessecuritybytheConstitutionandlaws,shallbeliabletotheparty
injuredinanactionatlaw,suitinequity,orotherproperproceedingforredressal.”
Section1983actionsareintendedtofulfillatleasttwobasicpurposesinthepoliceabuse
circumstancesnamelythatsuchsuitsforremedyaredesignedtocompensatevictimsofpolice
abuse,usuallythroughanawardofcompensatorydamages.11 Insomecircumstances,victimsare
compensatedmillionsofdollarsasaresultofthegrossinjusticemetedoutagainstthemsuchas
inthecaseofRodneyKing,wherehewascompensatedwith3.8milliondollarsduetothe1991
incidentwherehewasbrutallyassaultedbytheLAPDofficers.
ThesameunfortunatelyisnottrueinIndia.TheInternationalCovenantofCivilandPolitical
Rights(ICCPR)statesinArticle9(5):
“Anyonewhohasbeenthevictimofunlawfularrestordetentionshallhaveanenforceableright
tocompensation.”12
IndiaaccededtotheICCPRwithareservationtoArticle9(5),statingthatwithintheIndian
LegalSystem,thereisnoenforceablerighttocompensationforpersonsclaimingtobevictimsof
unlawfularrestordetentionagainstthestate.However,theSupremeCourtofIndiarecognized
therighttoseekaremedyforunlawfuldetentionandarrestinthecaseofKhatrivsStateof
Bihar13 whereitstatedthatitshouldpreparetoforgenewtoolsandtodevisenewremediesfor
themeaningfulenforcementofRighttolifeotherwiseitwouldbereducedtoamereropeof
sand.14
NeverthelessthecompensationprovidedbytheSupremeCourtisnotpunitiveinitsnaturebut
moresorestorative.Thisthereforeimpliesthatthedamagesawardedwoulddolittletodeterthe
stateanditspolicingmechanismfromengaginginsuchactionsandasisevidentinmodern
India,Custodialviolenceanddeathisstillrampant.
11
h
ttps://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/police/uspo40.htm#P1338_315081
12
h
ttps://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
13
KhatriAndOthersvsStateOfBihar&Orson19December,1980(1981SCR(2)408,1981SCC(1)627)
14
hatriAndOthersvsStateOfBihar&Orson19December,1980(1981SCR(2)408,1981SCC(1)627)
K
InthecaseofRudulSah,anindividualwhowasunlawfullydetainedbytheBiharPolicefora
periodof14yearsduetohisso-calledmentalinstability,asjustifiedbytheBiharPolice
Authorities.ThecourtrecognizingtheneedtocompensateSahfortheinjusticemetedout
againsthimawardedacompensationofRs.30,000.Thestrikingpartofthejudgementwasthat
thecourtclarifiedthatthecompensationofferedwouldnotbarRudulSahfrominvokingthe
remedyofaCivilSuit.15 Thedecisionwasmonumentalinsomuchthatthecourtrecognizedthe
righttoremedyforUnlawfuldetentionorarrestandthatitdidnotbarthevictimfromseeking
civilremedybutthecompensationitofferedwasinsufficienttoassisthiminpursuinghisrightto
acivilremedynordiditoffermuchpalliativehelpforthementalagonyandsufferinghemust
haveenduredduringthe14years.
ItisinthecaseofNilabatiBeheravsStateofOrissa,thatthingsstartedtotakeaturnforthe
betterastheSupremeCourtusedthisopportunitytosystematicallydissecttherighttoseek
compensationforviolationsofRighttolifeandPersonalLiberty.Thecourtdistinguishedthe
demarcationsfromthePublicLawRemedyofcompensationwiththeordinaryremedies
availableinPrivateLawproceedingswithrelationtoviolationsofFundamentalRightsdueto
Unlawfuldetentionorarrest.Italsodelvedintotheconceptofsovereignimmunity16 which
essentiallybarsanycivilproceedingagainsttheStateandprovidesthemimmunityforthesame.
ThecourtassertedthatforPublicLawproceedingssuchasunderArticle32orArticle226ofthe
IndianConstitution,thedoctrineofsovereignimmunitywillnotapplybutitcouldapplyto
privatelawproceedingsoftortsthatarecommittedbythestate.17
Conclusion
TheIndianJudiciaryhastraversedanarduousroadinrelationtopublicaccountabilityespecially
whenitsconcernedwithpoliceexcessandcustodialviolenceanddeaths,inmanycircumstances
theratiodecidendiofthecourtwasquestionableoroutrighterroneousbutasJudiciaryfurthered
itsunderstandingoftheFundamentalRightsmoresowiththeRighttoLifeandPersonalLiberty
itbecamemoreconnectedtothepulseoftheIndianpolity.TheSupremeCourtthroughthe
15
1 983AIR1086,1983SCR(3)508
16
h ttps://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5521ec58-6c1c-4577-a285-abed6baae0b4
17
1993AIR1960,1993SCR(2)581
judgementspromulgatedinNilabatiBeheravsStateofOrissa,D.KBasuvsStateofWestBengal
andseveralmoreprovidedaframeworknotjustforpoliceconductintheeventofanarrestor
detentionofanyindividualbutalsoascertainedthevariousdemarcationsassociatedwiththe
righttoseekremedyintheeventofcustodialviolenceordeath.Nonetheless,thereisstillalong
waytogoascasesofviolenceordeathincustodyarestillprevalentsuchasinthehorridcaseof
JeyarajandBennicksinTamilNaduwhichhappenedjustlastyear.Shouldthepublicofficersbe
heldmoreaccountablefortheirdemeanors,shouldtherebeamoreimpactfulsystemtohold
themliablefortheiractions,thestatethencanfullyenforcethetruesenseofourfundamental
rightsandliberties.