Can Police Violates Human Rights during Interrogation
Yesterday while reading the newspaper where I came across an incident in which the person who was subject to police interrogation was subjected to such torture which robed his basic fundamental right.
Table of Contents
- Objective of Police Authority
- Corruption and Police
- Principles of police interrogation
- Violation of human rights by police during interrogation
- Rights Against Police Interrogation
- Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P
- Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Others
- Conclusion
Objective of Police Authority
The main objective of Police Authority is to provide protection to ordinary people, and their role demands a high level of quality, fairness, and professionalism. Given the current situation, it is difficult to argue that our police services have consistently refused to stand on the above qualities.
Corruption and Police
Corruption has tarnished the mind-set of the majority of police officers, and as a result of many incidents in the past, their work has lost its essence, which it should have had. The police are arbitrarily using their authority, which simply violates basic human rights and also threatens our nation’s Constitutional principles. The need for police reform is pressing, and it must be undertaken as soon as possible.
Any improvements that should be made to modern machinery could begin with the creation of legislative institutions to ensure that the police are strictly enforcing the law.
PRINCIPLES OF POLICE INTERROGATION
There are no concrete rules of police interrogation, but there are certain inherent principles based on various International Conventions that the police must obey while conducting interrogations. Some of the principles are as follows:
- The individual being interrogated has the universal right to life, liberty, and security. The concerned principles cannot be revoked by police authorities in any way. It is derived from Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is also retained in various constitutional provisions such as Article 20, Article 21, and so on.
- An individual who is being interrogated cannot be arbitrarily deprive of his or her existence. To proceed with such interrogations, the authority should have a subjective satisfaction. Taken from Article 6(1) of the ICCPR, it is expressly addressed in Article 20 of the Indian Constitution.
- Torture or any other inhumane treatment that would deprive a person of his or her basic civil rights shall not be used against a person subjected to questioning.
- Every individual must have the constitutional right to equality before the law and equal protection under the law, and no authority could deprive a person subjected to questioning of that right. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution addresses this as well.
- There are also standard guidelines for the care of a person subjected to questioning in police custody, which include not torturing him or her and following a due process provided by statute at all stages.
Violation Of Human Rights By Police During Interrogation
With the approval of the judge, the police have the authority to question any suspected person for a limited period of time. Interrogation is used to collect facts or other relevant information about the crime from the accused, but it is difficult to extract such information because it may be fatal to the accused. In such cases, police use a variety of techniques to uncover the facts.
These techniques are often used to the point that they violate human rights and undermine the intent of the criminal justice system. Since the deterrence principle of crime is no longer practiced, the power to punish lies with the court or the judge, with the police’s position remaining until the conclusion of the investigation.
Furthermore, human rights were abused in India during the Emergency, i.e., in 1975, when several people were detained by police on the order of the government without a warrant. Those demonstrating were tortured by police officers during questioning, and no one was held accountable.
Rights Against Police Interrogation
- In India, an accused person is presumed innocent before his or her guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court. The burden of proof lies on the prosecutor, so it is the duty of the police to dispel any doubts and prove the guilt. The police have no right to subject the subject to illegal torture, and so the accused has the right to remain quiet, which he cannot be compelled to violate. Article 20 (3) safeguards individuals from self-incrimination in a manner analogous to the Right to remain silent.
- The right to a fair investigation is a fundamental human right that every Indian citizen enjoys. Individuals subjected to questioning not only in police custody, but also in jail, have this right.
- Interrogation subjects are not expected to be taken into police custody. Standard questioning may also be conducted, if possible. Interrogation in custody happens only when the authority is subjectively sure that the concerned person committed the crime. The same would be a violation of the individual’s fundamental right to life.
- No one should be subjected to inhumane punishments or abuse during an investigation. The Indian Parliament has been debating the abolition of 3rd Degree Torture for a long time, but no major progress has been made. Torture during interrogation is expressly prohibited by our Constitutional rights and fundamental human rights because it violates a person’s right to humanity.
- Article 20 of our Constitution mentions provisions for a person’s rights during and after detention. These protections take effect after the individual is taken into police custody, and the same rules apply in cases of questioning during arrests. An accused person can request to discover the reasons for his detention so that he can file a lawsuit. According to Article 22, the arresting authority is required to provide the person with a copy of the grounds of arrest and to allow him to consult a lawyer and make representation in accordance with the legal procedure.
CASE LAWS
- Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P
In this case, the Court emphasized the false statements of the citizens who were exposed to police custodial torture. The court ruled that such cases must be thoroughly investigated in order to decide if they are real or a sham effort by the accused to benefit from them.
- Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Others
In this case, the court identified certain issues that must be answered in the event of a custodial death or torture:
- Whether the breach of Article 21 is obvious and unmistakable;
- Whether the infringement is egregious and of such extent that it shocks the court’s conscience;
- whether the suspected custodial torture resulted in death
- Whether or not there is evidence of custodial torture, such as a medical record, noticeable bruises, wounds, or disability.
If the court determines that there is no witness present in the case of coercion in detention and the defendant himself is a witness, and the claim is not backed by any medical report, the court will not award compensation to that person.
Conclusion:
In order to provide a sense of security to ordinary individuals and reacting to their complaints is contingent on the formation of an effective, honest, and professional police force. The absence of such a police force in India is quite evident, and is evidenced by the findings of numerous commissions and committees, complaints received by human rights commissions, stories recorded on the news, and the experiences of ordinary citizens on the street. The need for police reform is obvious and serious.