Introduction
Recently the former Member of Parliament and State Legislative Assemble, the gangster turned criminal, Atiq Ahmed, was murdered in front of Live TV when he was taken to a hospital of a routine checkup. This killing has added another encounter cum police killing in India.
India, the largest democracy in the world, has a robust civil society, an independent judiciary, and a robust media. Still Indian institutions have failed to adequately implement several fundamental rights that its constitution stipulates to guarantee human rights. The Indian police system as it stands is one of the primary causes for concern regarding human rights in India. In order to prevent thousands of civilians from having their human rights infringed, the Indian Police force needs to be reformed. The current police are more interested in serving powerful politicians’ interests than regular people.
Difference Between Encounter and Fake Encounter
Police encounters happen when officials kill someone illegally, usually when they are in custody. However, these extrajudicial killings are frequently organized to appear as an encounter. This occurred in the Disha gang rape case, in which the Chanchalguda Central Jail inmates who were the accused were killed by police in a fictitious encounter on December 6, 2019. To investigate the occurrence, the Supreme Court assembled a three-person commission led by Justice V.S. Sirpurkar. The Telangana Police’s claims of self-defense were rejected by the panel on May 21, 2022. It was suggested that all 10 police officers be charged with murder in connection with the deaths of the four suspects in the ‘false encounter’.
Police Brutality in India
Indian might have the highest level of police brutality in the world. The law enforcers apply pressure to the suspects physically and psychologically. In India, police believe they are superior to the judiciary and can decide the suspect, who is being held without trial as guilty. The police’s lack of accountability is one of the main causes of any rights being violated while they were performing their duties. Police are exempt from responsibility under Section 197 of the CrPC.
Suspects have frequently been subjected to physical and psychological abuse in India for many years. Undertrials, some of whom are children or are being detained for the first time, are among the suspects or detainees held by the police. The cops who are holding both categories of captives physically torture them. These criminals in police uniforms spare no one from their violence. Many other types of physical torture, including rape, are carried out by the police, according to substantial studies in this area. Numerous innocent individuals die in custody due to these physical abuses, which is a severe violation of their human rights.
The “National Human Rights Commission Data” shows that between 2017-2022, there were up to 655 cases involving deaths during police interactions, as stated in the Parliament. The data showed that Chhattisgarh had the most of these, with 191 cases, followed by Uttar Pradesh, with 117 cases.
Recommendation by the Law Commission of India.
The 113th Law Commission proposed that section 114B be added to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in its reports to the government. In accordance with Section 114B, a police officer who injures a person while in custody may be prosecuted. If the damage occurred while the person was in custody, the court will presume that the police officer in charge of that person was responsible for it. Additionally, it was advised that the person who had been arrested undergo medical evaluation.
It suggested that Section 41(A) of the IPC should be amended so that arrest must be legally recorded. Section 50A was also suggested to require the police to notify the arrested person’s family members or anybody else they have designated. Additionally, it said that police officers were misusing the security afforded to them by section 197 of the CrPC. It was said that section 197 has some flaws and that sanctions must be applied when a public official commits an act that is either directly or indirectly related to the performance of his or her official duties.
What has the Supreme Court Held in these matter
The Supreme Court of India ruled in the “Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand” case in 2012 that extrajudicial execution are illegal under the country’s criminal justice administration system and compared them to state-sponsored terrorism.
The highest court refers to all other situations as “cold-blooded murders” and reserves such actions for the “rarest of rare cases.”
In the case of “Prakash Singh v Union of India”, the court gave several directions to the central and state governments to reform the police:-
- Establishing a State Security Commission.
- The appointment of the DGP through an open, merit-based procedure.
- Operational police officers must have a minimum tenure of two years.
- The division of the roles of law enforcement and investigation.
- The creation of the Police Establishment Board, which will rule on promotions, transfers, and other relevant services.
- Establishment of a state-level police complaints authority.
Conclusion
There were no significant attempts to control police wrongdoing. Despite the Supreme Court of India’s directives, it often takes years for a law to adequately regulate police behavior. Politicians do not want the police to be reformed since doing so would diminish their ability to control the police. People should be made aware of the rights that various statutes grant them. They ought to be able to exercise their rights to stop anyone from violating them, even police officers. Since certain laws have just been passed, the police can now be held responsible for any of their misdeeds.
By Aaryan Dwivedi
GNLU, Gandhinagar
