Police Misconduct, Custodial Torture, And Accountability
πΉ Police Misconduct, Custodial Torture, and Accountability:
β Introduction
Police misconduct and custodial torture are serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Despite constitutional guarantees (Article 21 β Right to Life and Personal Liberty), police abuse remains a challenge in many jurisdictions. Courts have played a crucial role in curbing such misconduct by laying down guidelines and emphasizing accountability.
πΉ Nature of Police Misconduct and Custodial Torture
Police Misconduct: Illegal or unethical behavior by police officers, including abuse of power, unlawful arrests, fabricating evidence, bribery, and harassment.
Custodial Torture: Physical or mental torture inflicted on persons detained or arrested by police to extract confession, information, or as punishment. This violates Article 21 and international human rights norms.
πΉ Legal Framework in India
Article 21, Constitution of India: Right to life and liberty includes protection against torture.
Section 330 and 331, IPC: Punishment for causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession or information.
Section 357, CrPC: Compensation to victims of wrongful acts by police.
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: Establishes NHRC to address human rights violations including custodial torture.
πΉ Landmark Case Laws on Police Misconduct and Custodial Torture
1. β D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
The case dealt with custodial deaths and torture due to illegal detention and police abuse.
Held:
The Supreme Court laid down stringent guidelines to be followed during arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
Guidelines include:
Police officer making arrest must bear an identity card.
The arrested person must be taken before a magistrate within 24 hours.
Entry in the diary about the arrest and place of custody.
Right to inform a relative or friend about the arrest.
Medical examination at the time of arrest and during custody.
Periodic inspection of jail premises.
Significance:
A landmark judgment that standardized procedural safeguards to protect against custodial torture.
2. β Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
A custodial death case where the victim was tortured and died while in police custody.
Held:
The Court held the State liable for custodial death and ordered compensation to the victimβs family.
Established the principle that the State has vicarious liability for police misconduct.
Emphasized that compensation is a mode to provide justice to victims.
Significance:
Reinforced the concept of State accountability and victim compensation.
3. β Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
The petition sought police reforms including measures to check custodial torture and enhance police accountability.
Held:
The Supreme Court issued directions for police reforms such as
Setting up State Security Commissions to oversee police.
Separate Police Establishment Boards to handle transfers and postings.
Police complaint authorities at the state and district levels.
These reforms aim at reducing misuse of police power and enhancing accountability.
Significance:
Pivotal case pushing institutional reform to curb police misconduct.
4. β Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts:
The case concerned use of narcoanalysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping on accused persons.
Held:
The Court held that such techniques cannot be administered without free and informed consent as it violates Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination) and Article 21.
The judgment protected the accused from forced scientific interrogation that may amount to custodial torture.
Significance:
Upholds rights against coercive custodial practices disguised as scientific methods.
5. β Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260
Facts:
The petitioner was detained illegally and tortured by police.
Held:
Court emphasized the right against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Laid down that police must record reasons for arrest and produce the detainee before magistrate within 24 hours.
Failure to do so entitles the victim to remedies including compensation.
Significance:
Strengthened safeguards against illegal detention and torture.
6. β Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 49
Facts:
Custodial death following police torture.
Held:
The Court awarded compensation and ordered departmental action against responsible police officials.
Emphasized police accountability and need for punishment to deter such crimes.
πΉ International Principles & Human Rights
UN Convention Against Torture (CAT): India is a signatory but has not ratified fully.
The Principles of Effective Investigation of Torture (UN Manual) require independent inquiry into custodial torture.
πΉ Summary of Judicial Directions to Curb Police Misconduct
| Direction/Guideline | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Identity card for arresting officer | Prevent anonymity and impunity |
| Prompt production before magistrate (within 24 hours) | Check unlawful detention |
| Informing relatives or friends | Prevent enforced disappearances |
| Medical examination on arrest and detention | Document torture injuries early |
| Police complaint authorities | Provide independent mechanism for complaints |
| Compensation for victims | Provide justice and deterrence |
| Police reforms and oversight | Institutional accountability |
πΉ Conclusion
Police misconduct and custodial torture remain a blight on justice and rule of law. The judiciary has intervened decisively to:
Protect fundamental rights of detainees.
Mandate procedural safeguards.
Enforce accountability through compensation and departmental action.
Push for systemic police reforms.
Continued vigilance, reforms, and judicial activism are necessary to ensure dignity and human rights in police custody.
RELATED Blog
0 comments