Custodial Violence: Arbitrariness of Police
Table of content:
- Introduction
- Torture on trend
- Need for the installation of CCTV cameras
- Critical analysis of Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh case
- Summary of the facts
- Court’s observation
- Court’s order
- Conclusion
- Case Laws:
- Shafi Mohammad vs The state of Himachal Pradesh [(2018) 5 SCC 311]
- K. Basu vs State of West Bengal & ors. [(2015) 8 SCC 744]
Introduction
Article 21 of the constitution of India guaranteed the fundamental right of right to life and personal liberty. But the main question that arises in the mind of the people is there is any protection given to the fundamental right of the prisoners and all those people who are in police custody. There are many cases where the police misuse their sovereign power while using the method of physical violence as a part of the interrogation. In Saheli vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi [A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 513] the police take a minor boy in their custody and torcher him so that the tenant lady will vacant the house of the complainant. But due to the physical torture of the police, the boy died as the consequence on the very same day of his release.
Nowadays the crime committed by the police with the people in the police custody takes a hype. Custodial crime gained so much importance these days.
Torture on Trend
According to India: Annual report on Torture 2019 it was reported that there was a total of 1,731 people have died while they were in police custody. Further, it was revealed that out of these 1,731 deaths there was a total of 1,606 people died in judicial custody while 125 people died in police custody. The report further stated that under the police or judicial custody there is a certain number of deaths due to illness or mental stress but there are also certain cases where the death was the result of the police torture in the attempt of 3rd-degree interrogation.
These kinds of incidents were rising in number by the police officials in order to get a confession from them or the police try to punish them or in order to obtain the important information. But while exercising their rights police officers used unjustifiable ways like hammering iron nails, hitting on the private parts of the individuals, etc.
Also, there are many situations when a woman who is under interrogation or in the custody becomes the victim of sexual harassment or sexual violence. Even there are certain rape cases that were also reported.
Also, the Juvenile who is in the custody under the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act, 2000 face the torture of police. Police even behave insensitively with such children. And all these acts of police officers would miserably fail the purpose and intention of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000.
Need for installation of CCTV Camera
The victims of the torture done by the police officers under the police custody or the judicial custody came into the limelight when a news was highlighted that there was the death of individuals who were under the custody of Jeyraj and Bennicks in Tamil Nadu. This incident depicts custodial brutality. The apex court in the context of the above-mentioned incident added clarity over certain aspects by establishing the criteria for the police accountability for such an incident, the right of the victims of such an incident, and the judicial transparency.
Also, the union for establishing the Democratic Right of the people while surveying the police station of Delhi find out that proper legal assistance is not providing to the individuals in the jail and the lock-up due to the conflicts and riots between the investigation authorities.
Supreme Court’s Order on the installation of CCTV Cameras in the police stations and jails
The hon’ble supreme court by its order in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh case. The case is discussed in the detail below.
Critical analysis of Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh case
Summary of the facts
The Supreme Court while referring to its order passed in 2017 in which the apex court ordered that there must be the installation of CCTV Cameras in all the police stations so that the court can keep a check on the activities of the police authorities by monitoring that:
- Whether there is an abuse of Human Rights of the individuals under custody?
- Availability of the proper videography of the crime scenes.
- Establishment of the Central Oversight Committee
According to the apex court order, a similar pattern must be followed in all the states and the union territories throughout India.
In July 2020 when a similar case comes before the court the apex court passed the further order in compliance with its order of 2017 it has to be impleaded that there is an installation of the CCTV cameras in all states and union territories and it is the duty of the central oversight committee to check the status of the installation of the cameras in all the police stations.
Also, in Shafi Mohammad vs The state of Himachal Pradesh [(2018) 5 SCC 311] the apex court passed the order to install the CCTV cameras in the police station in order to monitor the violations of human rights.
Further, the court considers the direction issued in the D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal & ors. [(2015) 8 SCC 744] which stated that it is the duty of every state to make an independent committee to supervise and study the installation of CCTV cameras and monitor the footage of such cameras and the committee is liable to make a report of such monitoring which need to be submitted periodically.
Court’s Observation
The apex court ordered that there must be an installation of CCTV cameras in each and every police station in all the states and the Union territories. The court further observed that it is the duty of the SHO (Station House of Officer0 of every police station to check whether the cameras installed in a particular station is properly functioning or not or in case the CCTV cameras are not working in a proper manner then the SHO of the concerned police station inform DLOC (District level oversight committee) regarding all the investigations and interrogation including the way it is conducted, what are the methods used by the police etc. until and unless the defect in the camera gets resolved. Upon receiving the information from the SHO regarding the malfunctioning of the camera the DLOC forward the same information to SLOC (State Level Oversight Committee) for the repair and maintenance of the cameras in the concerned police station immediately.
Here the State level Oversight Committee (SLOC) comprises of:
- secretary or the additional secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs
- Secretary or the additional secretary of Ministry of Finance
- Director General or Inspector General of Police
- Either the chairperson or any member of the women commission of a particular state.
The District Level Oversight Committee (DLOC) comprises of:
- Divisional/ regional/ revenue commissioner of that district
- District magistrate of a particular district
- District Superintendent of Police
- Mayor of the municipality of that district.
The decision of the Court
The court ruled out that nothing has been done in this two and a half years to compliance of its order dated 3rd April 2018 passed in Shafhi Mohammad vs State of Himachal Pradesh [(2018) 5 SCC 311]. This is a matter of the fundamental rights of the people enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court strictly stated that the executive, administrative, and police departments must take reasonable steps to execute the order ruled out i9n this case. And all this has to be done within 6 weeks from the day the order has been passed.
Further, the Supreme Court ordered to its registry that the copies of this order must be circulated to all chief or principal secretaries of each and every state and union territory. And such circulation must be done in physical as well as electronic way.
Conclusion
With the above analysis, we can figure out that it becomes a pattern for the government including both states as well as union to not following or act in compliance with the court’s order. The ruling for the installation of the camera was coming out case after case as we see above but there is no action or such plan was drawn by the government.
The apex court in the instant case strictly laid down the time period because it is the matter for the protection of fundamental rights of the individuals and failure of such protection ultimately led to the failure of the Indian judiciary.