POLICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Introduction

Human rights are the basic and fundamental rights that belong to every individual simply by virtue of being human. These rights are universal, inalienable, and essential for ensuring a life of dignity. They include the right to life, liberty, equality, and protection from arbitrary State action. In India, these rights are guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21.The police are the primary law enforcement agency of the State and play a crucial role in maintaining law and order, preventing crime, and protecting citizens. However, the exercise of police power must always be within the limits of law. In practice, there is often a conflict between police authority and human rights, especially in matters relating to arrest, detention, interrogation, and use of force. This has led to serious issues such as custodial torture, fake encounters, illegal detention, and abuse of authority. For example, while the police have the legal power to arrest a suspect, they cannot use violence to extract a confession. If a person is beaten in custody, it becomes a violation of both constitutional rights and international human rights standards. Therefore, maintaining a balance between effective policing and protection of human rights is essential in a democratic society.

During the Indian Emergency, human rights were severely violated as the government suspended the enforcement of fundamental rights, especially under Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. Large numbers of people, including political leaders, journalists, and activists, were arbitrarily arrested under preventive detention laws like MISA, and they had no legal remedy to challenge their detention. Police excesses such as custodial torture, illegal detention, and abuse of power became common, while freedom of speech was suppressed through strict censorship. In this context, the landmark case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521 became highly controversial, where the Supreme Court by majority held that during an emergency, a person could not approach courts even for enforcement of the right to life and liberty.

However, Justice H. R. Khanna gave a powerful dissent, stating that the right to life is a natural right and cannot be taken away even during Emergency, making his opinion a cornerstone of human rights jurisprudence in India.

Constitutional and Legal Framework in India

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except

according to procedure established by law. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision very broadly to include the right to live with dignity, the right against torture, and the right to fair treatment.This means that even a person accused of a crime has the right to be treated with dignity. Torture, custodial violence, or degrading treatment by police is a direct violation of Article 21.Example: If a suspect is beaten during interrogation to force a confession, it violates Article 21, even if the person is guilty.

Article 22 – Safeguards Against Arbitrary Arrest

Article 22 provides procedural safeguards to prevent misuse of police powers. It ensures that:

• The arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest
• The person has the right to consult a lawyer
• The person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours

Example: If police detain a person for more than 24 hours without producing them before a magistrate, it is illegal and unconstitutional.

Statutory Safeguards

The criminal procedure laws (now under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) regulate arrest, detention, and investigation. These laws aim to ensure that police powers are not misused.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, plays an important role in monitoring violations and recommending action.

International Human Rights Framework

India’s approach to policing and human rights is also influenced by international law. Even though some international conventions are not fully enforceable domestically, courts often rely on them while interpreting fundamental rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

The UDHR lays down basic human rights standards applicable worldwide.

• Article 3 guarantees the right to life and liberty
• Article 5 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment

This directly applies to police conduct, especially during custody and interrogation.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

India is a party to ICCPR, which legally binds it to protect civil and political rights.

• Article 7 prohibits torture
• Article 9 protects against arbitrary arrest and detention

Indian courts have often relied on ICCPR to strengthen Article 21 protections.

United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)

India has signed but not ratified UNCAT. However, its principles are important:

• It requires States to criminalize torture
• It mandates accountability for custodial abuse

The absence of a specific anti-torture law in India is often criticized in light of UNCAT obligations.

UN Basic Principles on Use of Force (1990)

These principles require that police use force only when necessary and in proportion to the situation. Excessive force is considered a violation of human rights.

Forms of Human Rights Violations by Police

Custodial Violence and Death

Custodial violence includes physical torture, mental harassment, and death of a person in police custody. It is one of the most serious human rights violations.

Example 1: A suspect is beaten with sticks and subjected to electric shocks during interrogation.

Example 2: A detainee dies due to injuries caused by police torture.

Such acts violate Article 21 and international law standards under UDHR and ICCPR.

Fake Encounter Killings

Encounter killings are cases where police kill suspects claiming self-defense. However, many such encounters are alleged to be staged.

Example: A suspect is taken into custody and later shown as killed in a shootout without

proper investigation.This violates the right to life and due process.

Illegal Arrest and Detention

Illegal arrest occurs when police do not follow legal procedures.

Example: A person is picked up for questioning, not informed of charges, and not allowed to contact family or lawyer.This violates Articles 21 and 22 as well as ICCPR provisions.

Torture for Confession

Police sometimes use “third-degree methods” such as beating, sleep deprivation, or threats to extract confessions.

Example: A suspect is forced to confess by being denied food or subjected to continuous interrogation.Such confessions are unreliable and violate human dignity.

Detailed Case Laws

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416

A letter highlighting increasing custodial deaths was treated as a PIL.The Supreme Court laid down detailed arrest guidelines, including:

• Arrest memo must be prepared
• Relatives must be informed
• Medical examination must be conducted

The Court held that custodial torture violates Article 21 and human dignity.These guidelines are mandatory and binding on police authorities.

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) 3 SCC 184

Concern over lack of transparency in police stations. The Court ordered installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations since surveillance would deter custodial violence and ensure accountability.

Example: If CCTV footage is missing in a custodial death case, courts may presume wrongdoing.

Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260

A lawyer was arrested without proper justification. The Court held that arrest must not be routine; it must be necessary and justified. Significance: Protects individuals from arbitrary arrest.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746

A person died in police custody.Supreme Court awarded compensation to the victim’s family as violation of fundamental rights require compensation.

Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1

Concern arose over political interference in police functioning. The Supreme Court Directed major police reforms, including independent complaint authorities aimed at improving accountability and professionalism.

Recent Judicial Trends (2024–2026):– Recent judgments show stricter judicial attitude

toward police misconduct. Courts have:

• Criticized failure to install CCTV cameras
• Allowed prosecution of police officers for custodial deaths
• Upheld severe punishments in custodial torture cases

This indicates increasing emphasis on accountability.

Recent Developments and Current Issues

Recent years have seen a rise in custodial death cases across India, leading to public outrage and judicial intervention. Courts have taken strict action in some cases by allowing prosecution of police officers under murder charges.There have also been instances where trial courts have awarded severe punishments, including life imprisonment or even death penalty, to police officers involved in custodial torture. Such decisions are rare but significant as they act as a deterrent.Another emerging issue is the use of surveillance and digital policing tools. While these improve efficiency, they raise concerns regarding privacy and misuse of power.

Problems in the System

One of the biggest problems is the low conviction rate in cases of custodial violence. This creates a sense of impunity among police officers. Another issue is the absence of a specific antitorture law in India, which weakens enforcement.There is also a cultural issue within the police system where use of force is sometimes considered normal during investigation. Lack of training and political interference further aggravate the problem.

Suggestions and Reforms

India should enact a comprehensive anti-torture law in line with international standards such as UNCAT. Police reforms suggested by courts must be implemented strictly.CCTV cameras should be installed and monitored in all police stations. Police officers should receive proper training in human rights and modern investigation techniques.Independent complaint authorities must be established to ensure accountability. Public awareness about rights should also be increased.

Conclusion

The relationship between police and human rights is crucial in a democratic society. While police are necessary for maintaining law and order, their powers must be exercised within constitutional and legal limits.Human rights violations by police not only harm individuals but also undermine public trust in the system. Recent judicial developments show a positive trend toward accountability, but much more needs to be done.A balanced approach that ensures effective policing while protecting human dignity is essential for justice and rule of law.

Bibliography

Cases:

• K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
• Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) 3 SCC 184
• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260
• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
• Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1

International Instruments:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
• ICCPR (1966)
• UN Convention Against Torture

Reports:

• NHRC Reports on Custodial Violence