Police Brutality as a Human Rights Violation: Constitutional and International Dimensions

Introduction

Policing is central to maintaining law and order. However, when police powers are abused, they undermine democracy and human rights. When those entrusted to protect society become its violators, the foundation of justice trembles. Images of custodial deaths and excessive force at protests highlight a critical failure[1]. Such acts represent a direct assault on human dignity and the rule of law. Across continents, from India to Papua New Guinea, police brutality has emerged as a persistent challenge.

In India, custodial violence remains a pressing issue despite constitutional safeguards under Articles 14, 19, and 21. [2]Internationally, conventions like the ICCPR and the UN Basic Principles set clear standards. [3]Landmark cases such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) highlight judicial efforts to curb abuse[4]. Nevertheless, systemic failures persist in many jurisdictions.

This article argues that police brutality must be understood as a fundamental human rights violation. It is submitted that such violence is not merely professional misconduct. This study asks how constitutional safeguards and international frameworks address these violations and what reforms are necessary. The article proceeds in five parts. It first defines police brutality and its human rights dimensions. Subsequent sections contrast professional policing with misconduct and examine its effects. The article then analyses case law, critical evaluation, discusses legal limits, and conducts a comparative study. Finally, it reflects on legal maxims that reinforce responsibility to citizens.

Foundations of Police Brutality as Human Rights Violation

i.Meaning, Origin, and Human Rights Dimension

Police Brutality refers to the excessive, arbitrary, or unlawful use of force by law enforcement officers. It includes custodial torture, extrajudicial killings, racial profiling, and disproportionate force against civilians. The term gained prominence during the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s, when widespread police violence against African‑American communities was documented. [5]Since then, it has become a global concept, recognized as a systemic violation of human rights.

Viewed through a human rights lens, police brutality directly undermines the right to life, liberty, dignity, and equality. In India, Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution guarantee equality before law, freedom of expression, and protection of life and personal liberty. [6]Internationally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits torture and arbitrary deprivation of life, while the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990) require necessity and proportionality in policing. [7]The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) further prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. [8]Brutality therefore constitutes not just misconduct but a breach of binding constitutional and international obligations.

Examples include D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), where the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent torture in detention, including mandatory arrest memos and medical examinations. Despite this, deaths in custody remain high, the National Human Rights Commission reported over 500 custodial deaths in India in 2022. [9]In Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Court mandated police reforms to insulate the force from political interference and ensure accountability. [10]Yet incidents such as the deaths in custody in Tamil Nadu’s Sathankulam police station (2020) show continuing violations of constitutional safeguards.[11]

In the United States, the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis (2020) became a global symbol of police brutality. [12]His death, caused by a police officer kneeling on his neck for over nine minutes, violated the constitutional guarantee of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. [13]It also breached international human rights standards prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment. The incident sparked worldwide protests and renewed calls for transparency under both domestic and international law. Films such as Fruitvale Station (2013), based on the true story of Oscar Grant, and Detroit (2017), dramatizing police violence during civil unrest, further illustrate how brutality is embedded in public consciousness.[14]

These examples demonstrate that coercive policing practices are not confined to one jurisdiction but is a universal challenge. Constitutionally, it erodes the rule of law and democratic safeguards. Internationally, it violates treaties and conventions designed to protect human dignity. To understand this violation more clearly, it is necessary to contrast the standards of professional police conduct with the realities of misconduct, which will be examined in the next section.

Proper Policing vs. Misconduct

Policing, when carried out with integrity, professionalism, and respect for human rights, strengthens democracy and public trust. Proper policing is guided by principles of necessity, proportionality, accountability, and transparency. In contrast, police brutality represents misconduct, the abuse of authority through torture, extrajudicial killings, racial profiling, or corruption. While misconduct erodes the rule of law, proper policing demonstrates how law enforcement can protect rights and uphold justice.

In 2019, during the Kerala floods, police officers worked alongside rescue teams to evacuate vulnerable communities, ensuring safety and order without resorting to coercion. [15]This demonstrated policing as a service to the people, consistent with constitutional values of dignity and equality.

In Karachi, community policing initiatives introduced in 2018 emphasized dialogue and cooperation between police and citizens to reduce crime. [16]Officers engaged with local communities to build trust, showing that accountability can counter the perception of brutality often associated with “encounter killings.”

In Camden, New Jersey, police reforms beginning in 2013 transformed a department once notorious for misconduct into a model of community policing. [17]Officers were retrained to de‑escalate conflicts, reduce use of force, and build relationships with residents. Violent crime dropped significantly, and public trust improved, illustrating how proper policing can replace brutality with legal answerability.

In Papua New Guinea, despite systemic challenges, the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC) has engaged in UN‑supported human rights training programs. For instance, in 2021, OHCHR conducted a five‑day training in Mendi, Southern Highlands Province, focusing on lawful arrest procedures and respect for detainees. [18]This initiative demonstrates efforts to align policing with international human rights standards.

These examples highlight the stark contrast between proper policing and misconduct. Lawful policing protects rights, fosters trust, and strengthens democracy, while barbarity undermines constitutional safeguards and international human rights standards. Yet, when policing fails and brutality replaces service, the effects are devastating, eroding public trust, violating constitutional guarantees, and destabilizing societies. The next section examines the importance of professional policing more deeply by analysing the wide‑ranging effects of police brutality.

Impact on Democracy and Rule of Law

Direct effects on governance and trust.

Democracy rests on the rule of law, equality before the law, and the protection of fundamental rights. Proper policing is central to this framework: it ensures that state power is exercised fairly, protects citizens, and reinforces trust in institutions. When police act with obedience to law and respect for human dignity, they strengthen democratic legitimacy.

Cruelty undermines democracy by eroding trust, silencing dissent, and fostering fear. Excessive force weakens participation, while custodial torture and unlawful killings corrode equality before the law. Brutality shifts policing from a service to the people into an instrument of repression, destabilizing governance.

In India, custodial deaths and extrajudicial encounters have repeatedly challenged the democratic promise of equality and liberty. The Sathankulam custodial deaths in Tamil Nadu (2020) highlighted failures to uphold Supreme Court safeguards from D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997). Such incidents weaken public confidence in constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21, and raise questions about the credibility of law enforcement.

The United Nations has consistently warned that police brutality threatens democratic stability. In 2021, UN experts issued a global call to end police violence, stressing that excessive force contravenes international law. [19]OHCHR’s training programs, such as those conducted in Papua New Guinea, emphasize lawful arrest procedures and detainee rights, recognizing that respect for human rights in policing is essential to sustaining democratic institutions.[20]

Globally, the effects are evident. In the United States, the killing of George Floyd (2020) triggered mass protests and demands for reform, showing how misconduct destabilizes societies. In Pakistan, Human Rights Watch (2016) documented widespread “encounter killings,” eroding trust and weakening the rule of law. [21]

“The world no longer has a choice between force and law; if civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law.” — Dwight D. Eisenhower[22]

Ferocity weakens democracy by undermining constitutional guarantees and weakening institutions. Recognizing this impact is essential to understanding why responsibility and reform are indispensable. The next section will examine important case principles in India and abroad.

Critical Evaluation of safeguards and enforcement.

Despite constitutional safeguards and international standards, police brutality persists because enforcement mechanisms remain weak and legal responsibility structures are compromised. In India, Supreme Court guidelines in D.K. Basu and reforms mandated in Prakash Singh have not translated into consistent practice. [23]Political interference, lack of institutional independence, and inadequate training undermine the effectiveness of these safeguards. The persistence of custodial deaths demonstrates that legal protections alone are insufficient without robust enforcement.[24]

Internationally, instruments such as the ICCPR and CAT establish clear prohibitions against torture and arbitrary deprivation of life. [25]Yet India has not ratified CAT, reflecting a reluctance to bind itself to stronger international liability. [26]This gap illustrates how constitutional and international frameworks can be undermined by political will and institutional inertia.

Counterarguments often stress that policing requires discretion and that excessive judicial oversight may hinder operational efficiency. However, unchecked discretion has repeatedly led to abuse. The challenge is not to eliminate police authority but to embed accountability mechanisms that ensure authority is exercised lawfully. Independent oversight bodies, transparent investigations, and mandatory reporting are essential to balance operational needs with human rights obligations.

Comparative perspectives highlight further inadequacies. In the United States, despite judicial limits in Tennessee v Garner and Graham v Connor, systemic racial profiling and excessive force persist. [27]This demonstrates that judicial pronouncements alone cannot dismantle entrenched practices without structural reform. Similarly, Pakistan’s reliance on “encounter killings” shows how weak answerability before law perpetuates abuse.[28]

The failure lies not in the absence of law but in weak enforcement and a resistant policing culture.  Legal frameworks must be supported by independent oversight, political commitment, and a shift in policing culture from coercion to service. Without these reforms, constitutional and international safeguards remain aspirational rather than effective.

Judicial and Constitutional Case Principles

D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial torture, including mandatory arrest memos, medical examinations, and informing relatives. [29]This case is a cornerstone in protecting the rights of detainees.

Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) – The Court directed wide‑ranging police reforms to reduce political interference and improve duty. [30]It emphasized that professional policing is essential to uphold the rule of law.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014) – The Court issued guidelines on investigating “encounter killings,” stressing that every death caused by police action must be subject to impartial inquiry to prevent abuse of power.[31]

Tennessee v. Garner (1985) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police cannot use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless the suspect poses a serious threat. [32]This case set limits on excessive force.

5.Graham v. Connor (1989) – The Court established the “objective reasonableness” standard, meaning police use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, not in hindsight.[33]

6.McCann and Others v. United Kingdom (1995) – The Court held that lethal force used by security forces must be strictly necessary and proportionate. [34]This case reinforced the principle that the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights is non‑negotiable.

7.Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Reports – Though not a single landmark case, repeated reports have documented misuse of “encounter killings.” [35]Courts have increasingly stressed that such killings must be investigated to preserve public trust in the justice system.

These case principles show a common thread: courts across jurisdictions recognize that unchecked police power undermines democracy and human rights. By setting limits on force, mandating administrative responsibility, and insisting on independent investigations, judicial bodies attempt to safeguard the rule of law against police misconduct.

” Law is order, and good law is good order.” — Aristotle[36]

Limits and Comparative Perspectives on Policing.

i.Constitutional Limits (India, Papua New Guinea, U.S., U.K.)

Policing is essential for maintaining order, protecting rights, and upholding the rule of law. Yet it is not absolute. Police forces operate within constitutional boundaries, international human rights standards, and societal expectations. When these limits are ignored, policing risks becoming oppressive.

In India, Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution restrict police power by guaranteeing equality, freedom of expression, and protection of life and liberty. [37]The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) emphasized strict safeguards to prevent custodial torture. Similarly, Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) highlighted that political interference undermines professional policing, showing that institutional independence is a necessary limit.

Globally, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990) set clear limits: force must be necessary, proportionate, and accountable. [38]The ICCPR prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life and torture, reminding states that policing cannot override fundamental rights.[39]

In the United States, Tennessee v. Garner (1985) ruled that police cannot use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless they pose a serious threat. [40]In the United Kingdom, McCann v. United Kingdom (1995) held that lethal force must be strictly necessary, reinforcing the non‑negotiable right to life. [41]In India, the Sathankulam custodial deaths (2020) revealed the consequences of ignoring constitutional limits, sparking outrage and calls for responsibility for actions.[42]

These examples show that policing must remain within legal and moral boundaries.

As Eisenhower observed:

“Civilization must choose the rule of law.”

[43]Recognizing these limits is crucial to prevent abuse of authority and to ensure that policing serves democracy rather than threatens.

ii.A comparative study

India’s Constitution limits police power through Articles 14, 19, and 21, which guarantee equality, freedom of expression, and protection of life and liberty. Similarly, the U.S. Constitution, through the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments, guarantees free expression, due process, and equal protection, placing comparable limits on police authority[44]. Yet incidents such as the Sathankulam custodial deaths (2020) reveal gaps in enforcement. [45]The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) laid down safeguards against custodial torture, while Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) emphasized structural reforms. [46]These cases show that protections exist, but brutality persists when safeguards are ignored.

Internationally, the United Nations sets clear standards. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990) require necessity, proportionality, and accountability. The ICCPR prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life and torture. [47]The UN Human Rights Council has condemned police violence worldwide, stressing that unchecked force undermines democracy and the rule of law. [48]OHCHR training programs illustrate efforts to align policing with human rights.

As Eleanor Roosevelt observed:

 “Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both[49].”

This principle underlines the UN’s insistence that policing must protect all citizens equally.

In the United States, the killing of George Floyd (2020) exposed systemic issues of racial profiling and excessive force, despite judicial limits set in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989). [50]In the United Kingdom, McCann v. United Kingdom (1995) reinforced that lethal force must be strictly necessary, protecting the right to life. [51]In Pakistan, reports by the Human Rights Commission document widespread “encounter killings,” showing how weak accountability allows brutality to persist. [52]

As Chief Justice Earl Warren once said:

“The police must obey the law while enforcing the law[53].”

This reminder captures the essence of judicial oversight across jurisdictions.

Across India, UN law, and other countries, a common thread emerges: police brutality undermines constitutional rights and human rights standards. Courts and global bodies set limits, but enforcement remains the challenge. Proper policing requires not only strong laws but also consistent accountability to prevent abuse of authority.

Legal Maxims Reinforcing Accountability

Legal Maxims are short, established principles of law that guide judicial reasoning and ensure consistency in applying justice. They serve as timeless reminders that policing, like all state power, must remain subject to law and fairness. When examining police brutality, several maxims become particularly relevant.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum (“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”) [54]Is a Latin Legal maxim that emphasizes that justice must prevail regardless of consequences. In the context of policing, it means that accountability for custodial deaths, torture, or extrajudicial killings cannot be sacrificed for expediency or political convenience. Courts in India, through cases like K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), have echoed this principle by insisting that procedural safeguards must be followed even in difficult circumstances.[55]

Be you ever so High, the Law is above you[56]. This maxim underscores equality before the law. Police officers, despite their authority, are not above constitutional limits. Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution embody this principle, ensuring that every citizen — whether ordinary or powerful — is entitled to protection against unlawful force.

Salus populi suprema lex (“The welfare of the people is the supreme law”) [57]This maxim highlights that the ultimate purpose of law is the welfare of society. Policing must therefore protect citizens, not instill fear. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force (1990) reflect this maxim by requiring necessity and proportionality in police action.[58]

Ubi jus ibi remedium (“Where there is a right, there is a remedy”) [59]This maxim insists that violations of rights must be met with remedies. Compensation for custodial deaths, as in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), illustrates how courts enforce this principle to restore faith in justice.[60]

These maxims remind us that policing is bound by law, justice, and the welfare of the people. They reinforce that unchecked police power contradicts the very foundations of democracy. By applying these principles, courts and institutions ensure that policing remains a service to society rather than a tool of oppression.

Conclusion

Police brutality is not simply professional misconduct; it is a grave violation of constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations. From custodial deaths in India to the killing of George Floyd in the United States, and from Pakistan’s encounter killings to global UN reports, the evidence demonstrates that unchecked police power corrodes democracy, undermines the rule of law, and erodes public trust in institutions.

Safeguards in India’s Constitution, judicial rulings like D.K. Basu and Tennessee v Garner, and international frameworks such as the ICCPR all converge on one truth: policing must remain accountable, proportionate, and bound by law.

Legal maxims reinforce this imperative. Fiat justitia ruat caelum reminds us that justice must prevail even against the odds. Be you ever so high, the law is above you underscores equality before the law. Salus populi suprema lex insists that the welfare of the people is the supreme law, while Ubi jus ibi remedium affirms that rights must be matched with remedies.

To move forward, states must ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and embed its standards into domestic law. Independent accountability commissions should be established to investigate misconduct, while human rights training must be mandatory for police forces. Victims of custodial deaths and unlawful force must receive compensation and remedies, and judicial oversight must be strengthened to ensure constitutional safeguards are consistently enforced. Further research should examine comparative accountability models, the role of technology in police oversight, and how international best practices can be integrated into domestic policing frameworks.

Reference(S):

Cases

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

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

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

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635 (India).

Tennessee v Garner 471 US 1 (1985) (United States Supreme Court).

Graham v Connor 490 US 386 (1989) (United States Supreme Court).

McCann and Others v United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 97 (European Court of Human Rights).

Constitutional and International Instruments

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19 and 21.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966) 999 UNTS 171.

UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990).

UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) (1984) 1465 UNTS 85.

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2.

Reports and Institutional Sources

National Human Rights Commission of India, Annual Report 2022 (NHRC, New Delhi).

Human Rights Watch, Crooked System: Police Abuse and Reform in Pakistan (2016).

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Reports on Encounter Killings (various years).

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), UN Experts Call to End Police Brutality Worldwide (Press Release, 2021).

Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary & OHCHR, Human Rights Training Programme Report (Mendi, 2021).

NCHR Pakistan, Police Reforms Report (2018).

Secondary Sources

Herbert Broom, A Selection of Legal Maxims (10th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 1939).

Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia: Adagies and Proverbs; Wise Sentences and Witty Sayings, Ancient and Modern, Foreign and British (London, 1733).

Centre for Law and Policy Research, Legal Accountability of the Police in India (2018).

Anirudh Agarwal, ‘International Law Approach to Police Brutality through the Lens of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (IJLMH, 2021).

Economic and Political Weekly (Engage), Investigating Police Brutality: A Reading List (2018).

Amnesty International, What We Do: Police Brutality (2020).

Human Rights Watch, Police Brutality in Papua New Guinea (2017).

LiveLaw, ‘Police Brutality in India’ (2023).

iPleaders Blog, ‘Role of Constitutional Courts in Cases of Police Brutality’ (2023).

Cambridge University Press, Fates of Political Liberalism in the British Postcolony: Legal Complex in the Struggle to Control Police Brutality in India (2019).

Films

Fruitvale Station (dir Ryan Coogler, 2013, Forest Whitaker/Significant Productions).

Detroit (dir Kathryn Bigelow, 2017, Annapurna Pictures).

[1] National Human Rights Commission of India, Annual Report 2022 (NHRC, New Delhi).

[2] Constitution of India, arts 14, 19, 21.

[3] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171; UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, 1990.

[4] D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, ¶¶ 15–20.

[5] See generally Human Rights Watch, Police Brutality in the United States during the Civil Rights Era (Report, 1968).

[6] Constitution of India, arts 14, 19, 21.

[7] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171; UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, 1990.

[8] Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec 10, 1984, 1465 UNTS 85.

[9] National Human Rights Commission of India, Annual Report 2022 (NHRC, New Delhi).

[10] Prakash Singh v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1, ¶¶ 25–30.

[11] Amnesty International, India: Custodial Deaths in Tamil Nadu’s Sathankulam Police Station (Press Release, 2020).

[12] BBC News, George Floyd: Timeline of Events (Report, 2020).

[13] US Const, amend XIV; see also Graham v Connor, 490 US 386 (1989).

[14] Fruitvale Station (dir Ryan Coogler, 2013); Detroit (dir Kathryn Bigelow, 2017).

[15] Government of Kerala, Kerala Floods Disaster Management Report (2019).

[16] Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Community Policing Initiatives in Karachi (2018).

[17] New Jersey State Police Department, Camden County Police Department Reform Report (2015); see also Council on Criminal Justice, Community Policing in Camden (2020).

[18] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Human Rights Training Programme Report: Mendi, Papua New Guinea (2021).

[19] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), UN Experts Call to End Police Brutality Worldwide (Press Release, 2021).

[20] OHCHR & Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary, Human Rights Training Programme Report: Mendi (2021).

[21] Human Rights Watch, Crooked System: Police Abuse and Reform in Pakistan (2016).

[22] Dwight D Eisenhower, Address to the American Bar Association (Chicago, Sept 1953).

[23] D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, ¶¶ 15–20; Prakash Singh v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1, ¶¶ 25–30.

[24] National Human Rights Commission of India, Annual Report 2022 (NHRC, New Delhi).

[25] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec 10, 1984, 1465 UNTS 85.

[26] Government of India, Status of Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties (Ministry of External Affairs, 2025).

[27] Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1, 3–7 (1985); Graham v Connor, 490 US 386, 396–99 (1989).

[28] Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Fact-Finding Report on Punjab Police Encounters (2016); Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Annual Report on Human Rights in Pakistan (2018).

[29] D.K Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, ¶¶ 15–20.

[30] Prakash Singh v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1, ¶¶ 25–30.

[31] People’s Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635, ¶¶ 20–25.

[32] Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1, 3–7 (1985).

[33] Graham v Connor, 490 US 386, 396–99 (1989).

[34] McCann and Others v United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 97, ¶¶ 146–150.

[35] Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Fact-Finding Report on Punjab Police Encounters (Lahore, Feb 2026); Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Annual Report on Human Rights in Pakistan (2018); Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Police Accountability and Encounter Killings in Punjab (2016).

[36] Aristotle, Politics, Book III, ch 16.

[37] Constitution of India, arts 14, 19, 21; Constitution of Papua New Guinea, Part III (Fundamental Rights), ss 32–49.

[38] UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted 1990.

[39] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171.

[40] Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1, 3–7 (1985).

[41] McCann and Others v United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 97, ¶¶ 146–150.

[42] Amnesty International, India: Custodial Deaths in Tamil Nadu’s Sathankulam Police Station (Press Release, 2020).

[43] Dwight D Eisenhower, Address to the American Bar Association (Chicago, Sept 1953).

[44] Constitution of India, arts 14, 19, 21; US Const amends I, V, XIV.

[45] Amnesty International, India: Custodial Deaths in Tamil Nadu’s Sathankulam Police Station (Press Release, 2020).

[46] D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, ¶¶ 15–20; Prakash Singh v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1, ¶¶ 25–30.

[47] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171.

[48] UN Human Rights Council, Resolution on Police Violence and Human Rights (2021).

[49] Eleanor Roosevelt, Speech at the United Nations, 1948.

[50] Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1, 3–7 (1985); Graham v Connor, 490 US 386, 396–99 (1989).

[51] McCann and Others v United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 97, ¶¶ 146–150.

[52] Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Fact-Finding Report on Punjab Police Encounters (2016); Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Annual Report on Human Rights in Pakistan (2018).

[53] Earl Warren, Address to the American Bar Association (1953).

[54] The maxim Fiat justitia ruat caelum is attributed to Roman sources, later popularised in English common law, notably cited in Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499.

[55] D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, ¶¶ 15–20.

[56] This maxim is traced to Sir Edward Coke, Reports (1604), reflecting the supremacy of law over authority.

[57] Cicero, De Legibus (Book III, Part III, Subsection VIII).

[58] UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted 1990.

[59] Originating in Roman law, later absorbed into English common law; see William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–69), Vol I, 23.

[60] Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746, ¶¶ 10–15.