Protest Policing In Finland
Police are entrusted with enforcing law and maintaining public order. However, excessive force, illegal detention, torture, and abuse of power can lead to violations of fundamental human rights. Globally, including in India and other jurisdictions, such violations are scrutinized under constitutional and international human rights standards.
Common Forms of Human Rights Violations by Police
Excessive Use of Force
Physical assault, firing without necessity, or brutality during arrests.
Custodial Torture and Deaths
Beating, starvation, electric shocks, or other inhumane treatment in custody.
Illegal Detention / Arbitrary Arrest
Detaining without proper warrant, legal cause, or exceeding the time limit for remand.
Violation of Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21 in India)
Arbitrary killings, extrajudicial executions, or neglect leading to death.
Violation of Right to Equality (Article 14 in India)
Discriminatory treatment based on caste, religion, gender, or social status.
Violation of Right to Privacy and Dignity
Illegal search, sexual abuse, or humiliation during arrests.
Legal Framework
Constitutional Protections (India example)
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty
Article 19: Freedom of speech and assembly
Article 14: Equality before law
International Conventions
ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Convention Against Torture (CAT)
Police Accountability Mechanisms
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
State Human Rights Commissions
Judicial remedies via PILs and writs
CASE LAW ANALYSIS
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts:
A person named D.K. Basu died in police custody due to alleged torture.
The case addressed custodial violence and arbitrary detention.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court of India laid down detailed guidelines for arrests to prevent custodial torture, including:
Police must carry an arrest memo with date and time.
Arrested person must be informed of rights.
Family members must be informed within 24 hours.
Medical examination of detainees is mandatory.
Significance:
Landmark case emphasizing custodial safeguards to prevent human rights violations.
Enshrined procedural safeguards against torture and abuse.
2. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997)
Facts:
Alleged custodial deaths and torture in police stations across India.
Multiple complaints from human rights activists highlighted abuse of power.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court recognized torture and custodial death as a human rights violation.
Directed states to ensure:
Independent inquiry into custodial deaths
Compensation to victims’ families
Registration of FIR against police officers responsible
Significance:
Reinforced accountability of police to human rights standards.
Recognized state liability for police violations.
3. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Facts:
Widespread misuse of police power in states leading to arbitrary arrests and custodial abuses.
Public interest litigation sought reforms in police governance.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court directed police reforms, including:
State Security Commissions to ensure accountability.
Fixed norms for posting and transfers to prevent corruption.
Guidelines for investigations and use of force.
Significance:
Emphasized structural reform to prevent systematic human rights violations.
Recognized importance of institutional accountability in policing.
4. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Facts:
Nilabati Behera’s son died in police custody due to custodial torture.
Family filed a petition seeking justice and compensation.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court held that custodial death violates Article 21 (Right to Life).
Ordered compensation to the victim’s family.
Emphasized police accountability and state responsibility.
Significance:
Established principle of compensation as a remedy for human rights violations by police.
Recognized custodial death as both civil and criminal liability for the state and officers.
5. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994)
Facts:
A 20-year-old student, Joginder Kumar, was illegally detained and allegedly tortured by police.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court clarified that arrest cannot be arbitrary or without reasonable suspicion.
Laid down guidelines for arrest and detention, including:
Informing detainee of grounds of arrest
Ensuring judicial scrutiny within 24 hours
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that unlawful detention is a human rights violation.
Introduced judicial safeguards to prevent abuse of police power.
6. State of Maharashtra v. Shukla (1972)
Facts:
Allegation of custodial death due to police brutality in Maharashtra.
Court Findings:
High Court held police liable for violating fundamental rights, even if conducted in the name of maintaining law and order.
Directed compensation and departmental action against police officers.
Significance:
Early case highlighting that police cannot escape liability for custodial deaths.
7. Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981)
Facts:
Torture and physical assault during custodial interrogation led to severe injuries.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court reiterated that custodial torture violates Article 21.
Emphasized right to human dignity and protection against inhuman treatment.
Significance:
Strengthened legal recognition of dignity as part of the right to life.
Court clarified that torture is never permissible, even under investigation pressures.
Key Takeaways from Case Law
Custodial Death and Torture
Courts consistently hold police liable for death or injury in custody.
State is responsible for compensation.
Procedural Safeguards
Arrests must follow strict procedure; detainee must be informed of rights and produced before a magistrate promptly.
Accountability
Independent inquiry, departmental action, and compensation are essential.
Human Dignity
Right to life includes the right to live with dignity; torture and humiliation are violations.
Systemic Reforms
Cases like Prakash Singh emphasize structural changes to prevent human rights violations in policing.
Conclusion
Police play a vital role in law enforcement, but human rights violations by police—including custodial torture, arbitrary arrest, and use of excessive force—remain a serious concern. Courts in India have consistently:
Protected rights under Article 21 (Right to Life)
Provided compensation to victims
Imposed procedural safeguards and reforms
Emphasized police accountability and structural reforms
These principles form the foundation of modern policing and human rights jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
comments