The Challenge of Police Brutality in India: A Crisis of Power and Accountability

India has one of the largest police forces in the world in terms of manpower. Still, at the same time, Indian police have often been highlighted for their sheer disregard towards the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights. Despite the constitutional protections, there are frequent instances where police power can infringe upon personal liberty. By curbing the discretionary powers that enable abuse and fostering a culture of accountability, India can uphold the rule of law and protect the human rights of its citizens. The path to reform is challenging but essential for building a just and equitable society.

India has one of the largest police forces in the world in terms of manpower. Still, at the same time, Indian police have often been highlighted for their sheer disregard towards the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights. That is not to say, in any sense, the tremendous necessity of a police force in society is to maintain a sense of safety for the common citizens and to keep order in a modern and complex society.

Police brutality remains a pervasive issue in many countries, and India is no exception. The problem is compounded by the police’s extensive discretionary powers, which often lead to misuse and the violation of human rights. In this piece, I have tried to explore the roots of police brutality in India, examine the implications of unchecked police authority, and simplify and highlight the loopholes in the criminal justice system which leave room for potential abuse of power and violation of the constitutional rights of the marginalised section of the society. 

As far as the current legal framework for police under the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (now replaced with the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is concerned, an accused could only be kept in police custody for 15 days after the arrest after the 15 days is expired, the accused has to be sent to the judicial custody. To sum it all up, it could be said that the total period of detention must not last 60 or 90 days, depending on the severity of the offence which the accused is to be charged with. However, when it comes to the new criminal procedure code namely Bharatiya Nagraik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the 15-day custody may be sought in parts throughout the total 90-day period. No specific criteria or guidelines are given as such for the use of this power, which essentially leaves the police wide power of a discretionary nature hence making it susceptible to abuse.

Under the vastly ambitious ambit of the criminal justice system of India, the police have been given immense powers. If they had not repeatedly been accused of misusing their power which they have often mistook for unquestionable “might” I might not even talk about the big “swing and a miss” that’s the “New Criminal Justice system”. To be more specific the whole criminal justice system has not been changed with the incumbent BNS, BNSS & BSA. There are some major changes such as discussed above but all those changes seem to have empowered the police and policing system more than ever before.

The police registered an FIR against the vendor for allegedly obstructing a public way to sell goods at a foot overbridge near the New Delhi station. The police have registered an FIR under Section 285 of the BNS which states, “Whoever, by doing any act, or by omitting to take order with any property in his possession or under his charge, causes danger, obstruction or injury to any person in any public way or public line of navigation, shall be punished with fine which may extend to Rs 5,000.”

The Delhi Police registered its first FIR under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against a street vendor in the Kamala Market area after the new criminal laws came into effect on Monday, bringing far-reaching changes in India’s criminal justice system.

POLICE AND THE JUDICIARY

Although police are subjected to various checks and balances as they should be in a democracy, but the judiciary has mainly been the biggest check as a result, the last resort of the citizens against the misconduct of the police. Therefore, it would seem very logical to conclude that the Judiciary and Police have a very sour-sweet relationship.

Both are the organs of the state under the supreme document of the constitution put in place to meet the end of justice. Since there are so many abuses by the police as has been seen in

“INDIAN POLICE USE VIOLENCE AS A SHORTCUT TO JUSTICE, IT’S THE POOREST WHO BEAR THE SCARS.”

After the repeated incidents of abuse of power by police in various cases one is reminded of the observation by former Chief Justice of India N.V Ramana sir –

“In an extraordinary rebuke over police brutality, India’s chief justice has said the most dangerous places in the country for threats to human rights are police stations.”  & “The threat to human rights and bodily integrity are the highest in police stations”

PEOPLE VERSUS POLICE

Under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bhartiya Sakshya Act, police have been empowered to compel an accused to produce their digital devices which essentially means Smart Phones for “investigation” and that would mean the person who has been accused under this legal framework since there is no guideline as to the reasonable procedure to handle these devices.

The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law, emphasising the importance of personal liberty under the Constitution of India. This case extended the scope of “personal liberty” and the “right to life” under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that any procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable.

The Supreme Court ruled that “personal liberty” under Article 21 includes more than just freedom from physical restraint. It encompasses a wide range of rights and freedoms, including the right to live with dignity, the right to travel abroad, the right to privacy, and more. This expansive interpretation protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The Court emphasized that any law or procedure that restricts personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. This principle ensures that laws cannot be arbitrary or oppressive, safeguarding citizens from unjust governmental actions. The judgment in Maneka Gandhi established that Article 21 must be read in conjunction with other fundamental rights, particularly those under Article 19, which guarantees various freedoms such as speech, assembly, and movement. This holistic approach ensures comprehensive protection of civil liberties.

Despite the constitutional protections, there are frequent instances where police power can infringe upon personal liberty. Here are some key points regarding this issue:

There have been numerous cases of arbitrary arrests and detentions by police, often without following due process. This violates the principles of fairness and reasonableness laid down by the Supreme Court.

Reports of custodial violence and torture highlight severe infringements on personal liberty and human dignity. Such practices violate constitutional protections and international human rights standards. In recent years, India has witnessed significant legal reforms aimed at strengthening the criminal justice system and protecting human rights. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2018, introduced several changes, including the mandatory videography of the interrogation process and the right to legal representation during police custody. These amendments were envisioned to minimise the instances of custodial torture. The police often operate with significant impunity, with limited mechanisms for accountability. This can lead to abuses of power and violations of personal liberties without adequate redress for the victims.

While the judiciary and police co-exist to maintain public order and deliver justice respectively but former has often attempted to limit the wide Discretionary power provided to the police which leads to the abuse. In the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014), The Bombay High Court, issued guidelines to prevent custodial violence, and various other forms of physical and mental abuse which take place in Presence of or in some cases due to police, emphasising the need for medical examination after detention and the use of CCTV cameras in police stations. Such measures don’t always go unwarranted but their implementation on a larger scale is certainly an audacious crusade no one is willing to pursue.

While the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining law and order, it is crucial to balance this with the protection of personal liberty. Ensuring that police powers are exercised within the bounds of law and subject to judicial oversight is essential. Strengthening legal frameworks, improving police training, and ensuring accountability mechanisms can help mitigate the casual infringement of personal liberties by the police.

Historical Context

The Indian police system has its origins in the colonial era, with structures and practices largely inherited from British rule. The Police Act of 1861, still in effect today, was designed to control a subjugated population rather than serve and protect citizens. This colonial legacy has fostered a culture of impunity and excessive force within the police force.

Indian police officers wield significant discretionary powers, enabling them to detain, arrest, and interrogate individuals with minimal oversight. These powers, intended to maintain public order and prevent crime, are frequently abused. Instances of custodial deaths, extrajudicial killings, and torture are alarmingly common, highlighting the systemic issues within the policing framework.

The misuse of police power in India directly contravenes universally acknowledged human rights. The right to life, freedom from torture, and the right to a fair trial are routinely violated. High-profile cases, such as the deaths in police custody of P. Jeyaraj and his son J. Benicks in Tamil Nadu, have drawn attention to the severe consequences of police brutality and the urgent need for reform.

Police brutality undermines the rule of law, a fundamental principle of democratic governance. When law enforcement officers act with impunity, it erodes public trust in legal institutions and fosters a culture of fear and injustice. This breakdown in the rule of law can lead to civil unrest, further destabilising the societal order.

Conclusion

Addressing police brutality in India requires a multifaceted approach that includes legal reforms, independent oversight, enhanced training, and community engagement. By curbing the discretionary powers that enable abuse and fostering a culture of accountability, India can uphold the rule of law and protect the human rights of its citizens. The path to reform is challenging but essential for building a just and equitable society.

Encouraging a community-oriented approach can build trust between the police and the public. Police officers should be seen as allies rather than oppressors.

Comprehensive training programs focused on human rights, ethical policing, and community engagement can help shift the culture within police forces. Emphasising non-violent methods of conflict resolution is crucial. Establishing independent bodies to investigate police misconduct can provide impartial assessments and deter abuse. Models from other democracies, such as civilian review boards could serve as effective blueprints.

Tohied Sharief Malik is student of law at Jamia Millia Islamia

Edited By: Ayesha Alim

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.