Judicial Review Of Police Actions
Judicial review is a process by which courts examine the actions of the executive branch, including police, to ensure they comply with the Constitution and statutory laws. When police act beyond their authority or violate fundamental rights, courts step in to review these actions and provide remedies.
Why Judicial Review of Police Actions?
To ensure protection of fundamental rights (e.g., right to life, liberty, equality, and freedom from torture or unlawful detention).
To prevent abuse of power and arbitrariness.
To maintain rule of law and accountability of police officers.
To uphold procedural fairness in investigations, arrests, and custodial treatments.
Grounds for Judicial Review of Police Actions:
Illegal or arbitrary arrest and detention.
Excessive use of force or police brutality.
Violation of procedural safeguards (e.g., right to counsel, fair trial).
Illegal search and seizure.
Custodial torture or deaths.
Failure to investigate crimes or protect citizens.
Landmark Case Laws on Judicial Review of Police Actions
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government without giving her a chance to be heard.
Issue: Whether police/administrative actions violating personal liberty require procedural fairness.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that any action affecting personal liberty must comply with Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), which includes the right to a fair procedure.
Significance: Expanded the scope of judicial review over police/administrative actions affecting liberty, emphasizing "due process".
2. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts: DK Basu, a human rights activist, filed a PIL highlighting police custodial torture and deaths.
Issue: Whether courts can lay down guidelines to check police torture and custodial violence.
Judgment: Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines for arrest and detention (e.g., police must inform family, medical examination of detainee, proper arrest memo).
Significance: Landmark case reinforcing judicial control over police action and protection against custodial torture.
3. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Facts: Nilabati’s son died in police custody under suspicious circumstances.
Issue: Whether courts can award compensation for custodial deaths and police negligence.
Judgment: Supreme Court awarded compensation to the victim’s family, emphasizing police accountability.
Significance: Recognized the right to compensation for police misconduct under Article 21 and established that police actions are subject to judicial review.
4. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
Facts: Joginder Kumar was detained illegally and tortured by police.
Issue: Legality of police detention and guidelines to prevent illegal arrests.
Judgment: Supreme Court issued guidelines restricting arrests to cases where it is necessary and directed police to produce arrested persons before magistrates within 24 hours.
Significance: Reinforced judicial review in illegal arrests and detention cases and protection against police excesses.
5. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts: Questioned use of narco-analysis, brain-mapping, and polygraph tests without consent.
Issue: Whether such techniques violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
Judgment: Supreme Court held that these tests are invasive and violate fundamental rights unless consented voluntarily.
Significance: Checked police investigative powers under judicial review ensuring protection of individual rights.
6. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999)
Facts: The issue was custodial violence and death during police interrogation.
Issue: Extent of police accountability for custodial violence.
Judgment: The Court held that police officers cannot enjoy immunity in cases of torture or custodial death and ordered strict action.
Significance: Strengthened judicial oversight of police conduct in custodial cases.
7. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Facts: Public interest litigation filed due to rampant police misconduct and politicization.
Issue: Reform of police structure and accountability.
Judgment: Supreme Court issued directives for police reforms, including setting up State Security Commissions and fixed tenure for officers.
Significance: Judicial intervention to ensure police accountability and independence from political influence.
Summary
Judicial review of police actions plays a critical role in upholding constitutional guarantees, preventing arbitrary and illegal use of power, and ensuring the police operate within the framework of law. Courts intervene to protect citizens’ rights, order compensation for abuses, and lay down procedural safeguards. The cases above are foundational in shaping how police actions are scrutinized in India.
RELATED Blog
comments