India needs robust courts to stop lock-up murders, police atrocities

The brutal death of a man-son duo following custodial torture in Tamil Nadu’s Tuticorin district last year, not only exposed the extent of police excesses, but the vulnerability of the common man to law enforcement agencies. At this juncture, the recent proposal of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana to form standing committees headed by chief justices of high courts to investigate complaints received from the common man on “atrocities” committed by the bureaucracy, especially the police, comes as a ray of hope.

In addition to human rights commissions, it is crucial to have a strong system that can secure the rights of the common man and protect him from the atrocities of the police and bureaucracy. Because, if the police go on a killing spree, who will protect the people?

P Jeyraj (59) and his son Emmanuel Bennicks (31) were arrested on June 19 by the Sathankulam Police for allegedly keeping their shop open beyond the COVID-19 curfew deadline and taken to the station and tortured for two days. The duo died a few days later in the hospital.

After a huge public uproar on the deaths and questions over the “impartiality” of state police in investigating the “crime” by their colleagues, the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).  The CBI in its charge-sheet named nine policemen and said they had arrested the man-son duo under false charges and tortured them in custody on June 19 and June 20, leading to their deaths a few days later.  The charge-sheet said that the father and son were so brutally beaten that blood was splattered on the walls of the torture room. The police had also made Bennicks wipe his blood stains with his vest, the charge-sheet said.

Also read: Jeyraj, Bennicks beaten for 6 hrs, blood splattered on station walls: CBI

The accused are Inspector and SHO S Sridhar, sub-inspectors K Balakrishnan and P Raghuganesh; head constables S Murugan and A Samadurai; and constables M Muthuraja, S Chelladurai, X Thomas Francis and S Veilumuthu – all posted at the Sathankulam Police Station in Tuticorin district at that time.

When law enforcers turn villains

This is not an isolated case of police excesses or where the cops and bureaucrats were the wrongdoers.

Courts over a period of time have pointed to several instances in which district administration officers were recorded on camera physically manhandling citizens during the COVID-19 lockdown.

It is a shock and surprise that Additional Director General of Police Gurjinder Pal Singh in Chhattisgarh is wanted in various criminal cases, including sedition, extortion and criminal intimidation. The suspended ADG recently moved the Supreme Court, seeking protection from arrest in a case filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A bench led by CJI Ramana, while turning down his plea for protection in the corruption case, however granted him protection in sedition and extortion cases filed against and leaving it for the high courts to decide on the bail petitions on the cases.

Recently, in Uttar Pradesh’s Gorakhpur, six police officers were booked for the death of a Kanpur-based businessman during a raid at a hotel.

Pitching for the formation of standing committees led by chief justices of high courts to look into such complaints, at a recent event on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti, CJI Ramana said these committees should stand as permanent institutional settings to deal with the serious violations of human rights in police stations and jails. He also took note of the possibility of charging the officers for political reasons, saying it is sad state of affairs that police officers are becoming targets of new party governments.

Human rights commissions paper tigers

Yes, we do have the Protection of Human Rights Act, but the institutions are under the control of the executive, filled by retired chief justices or senior justices, as a return gift for their coordination and cooperation with the government while in office. The State Human Rights Commissions are also reduced to non-serious entities as they are headed by retired persons. The institution of human rights court in district and in the lower levels of judiciary have only remained on paper. Unless the commissions at national, state, district or taluk-levels are converted into regular courts and youngsters are recruited as cadres instead of these bodies being used as the rehabilitation centres for retired judges, corruption in judiciary and non-serious functioning of human rights forums will continue, while people suffer torture in police stations and in the hands of those in power.

While the Human Rights Protection law is weak and a paper tiger, there is no other anti-torture legislation to penalise culpable uniform criminals and criminalise custodial violence.

Protection from torture is a fundamental right, enshrined under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution and so is the right to counsel under Article 22(1). These rights are supported by good procedural law, available in The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Section 41 of CrPC was amended in 2009 to include safeguards under 41A, 41B, 41C and 41D, so that arrests and detentions for interrogation have reasonable grounds and are documented procedures; arrests are made transparent to family, friends and public, and there is protection through legal representation.

Also read: ‘Sathankulam Declaration’ seeks law against police detention, torture

During 17 years till 2018, 1,727 persons have died in custodial violence in India. According to data released by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 26 policemen were convicted. Policemen, mainly from Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Odisha were convicted.

Many critics have pointed to the meagre number of convictions, but if seen from a different perspective it is surprising that 26 policemen were proved guilty and jailed. It kindles hope that there is still the rule of law in the country, in spite of the widespread atrocities by various offices of law enforcement.

In 2018 only 4.3 per cent of 70 deaths were attributed to injuries in custody due to physical torture by police.

Human rights violations are rampant in police stations. There were around 2,000 cases recorded against the police between 2000 and 2018, but only 344 policemen were convicted in these cases.

Standing with the underdog 

The media mostly does not stand with accused hailing from poor backgrounds. The latest example is the suicide of Raju, accused in the rape and murder of a six-year-old child in Hyderabad. He is strongly suspected to have been in police custody till his body was found on the railway tracks on September 16. The media, both electronic and print weaved narratives telling people that Raju was absconding, a prize was announced on his head and team were formed to nab him etc.

When an accused like him or his relatives are arrested, there is no legal representative to speak for him, simply because he cannot afford it. Legal aid is available only after a case is registered against the accused and he is brought before the court of law. A suspect like Raju could have had the right to an advocate during the time of arrest and while in custody. But the truth it legal aid at the right time is an unimaginable privilege for people from poor and middle class backgrounds. On the other hand, the same services is a luxury that criminally-charged politicians, bank fraudsters, corporate criminals, and bureaucrats involved in scandals enjoy with immediate effect.

Also read: As govt tasks panel to suggest law reforms, jurists see red

In fact, the very nomenclature is pro-police. The deaths in custody are described as “lock-up deaths”, which are in fact are murders in lock-up. Another camouflaged expression is custodial violence, which in fact is committing the crime of causing grievous injury as per Indian Penal Code.

(The writer is a former Central Information Commissioner and Dean, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)

(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)