MEANING : Police brutality or police violence is legally defined as a civil rights violation where law enforcement officers exercise undue or excessive force against a subject. This includes, but is not limited to, bullying, physical or verbal harassment, physical or mental injury, property damage, and death.

A democratic government is no guarantee that the police will act in a civilized manner. Given the powers vested in them to regulate this pandemic, the incidents of violence against common man is increasing including George Floyd incident in the U.S., the Sattankulam episode in Tamil Nadu.

Constitutional Courts in India have been trying to stop police brutality, yet this issue has resurfaced due to death of duo in Thoothukudi allegedly due to police violence.

DATA ON CUSTODIAL DEATHS : In past 3 years, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India has received nearly 5,300 complaints of custodial deaths (police and prison). There are chances that these numbers are under-reported. While government data recorded 1,727 deaths in police custody between 2000 and 2018, only 26 police officials were convicted.

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 :  Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock ups strikes a blow at the Rule of Law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society.

Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law-breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchy. No civilized nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him ? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest. ... The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic 'No'.

Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but it must be remembered that the law does not permit use of third degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.

In cases where custodial death or custodial torture or other violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 is established, courts may award compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226.

GUIDELINES WOULD NOT HELP :  The Supreme Court of India interventions in the 1990s passed various directions to try and ameliorate the problem of police violence through cases such as Joginder Kumar v. State of UP [AIR 1994 SC 1349] and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416] , where guidelines were passed to try and secure two rights in the context of any state action — a right to life and a right to know.

Guidelines of the top court would not be of value, unless the the local magistrate, who is the judicial actor wielding real power to realise substantial change in police practices.  The reason is when a person is arrested, the local magistrate, before whom he should be produced within 24 hours, is the point of first contact for a citizen to ensure rule of law under the constitution of India. 

BURDEN OF PROOF : Despite a suggestion by the Law Commission of India that if a person dies in police custody the burden should be on the police to show that they are not responsible for it, the law still requires the prosecution to prove that the police caused the death. India’s political commitment to address torture is symbolised by its failure to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture, and thereby putting itself in the list of only 19 countries to have not adopted it.

ISSUES WITH POLICE ADMINISTRATION :  Most policemen are made to believe from their very training days that brutality is inherent in the very role to be performed by them, to instil a certain degree of fear in the citizens. This attitude is reinforced by training instructors, who abuse and even manhandle errant trainees. This would explain the behavior of police and their brutality. Large vacancies in police forces are also responsible for this state. Against the UN recommendations of 222 police personnel for a population of one lakh, most States in our country have around 100 personnel only. Proper planning in recruitment, training, in service courses and close supervision by senior officers can go a long way in reducing, if not eradicating, brutality by policemen.

KIND OF IMPUNITY : A hardened criminal, Vikas Dubey, who had 62 cases against him before his gang allegedly shot dead eight policeme, was supposedly being transported without handcuffs; he snatched weapons from those escorting him, according to the police version of the incident. Indeed, this is no more than a self-indictment of the state police, whose conduct has raised far too many questions in the recent past. The brutal last episode of Dubey’s serial crimes should be no defence if the shooting turns out to be an extra-judicial killing. There is no question that crimes such as those Dubey was involved in must be met with exemplary punishment. The process of establishing guilt and executing punishment is not an incidental part of justice, but its integral soul. A fair and transparent trial cannot be dispensed with in order to satisfy cries for vengeance. Last year, when the Cyberabad police shot dead four people accused in a case of gang rape and murder, people celebrated in the streets. The courts and the National Human Rights Commission have also shown a lenient approach in such cases. Goading the police on to deliver instant justice, or even tolerating such behaviour, creates an atmosphere of impunity that could lead to murder of innocent people as happened with the custodial deaths in Tamil Nadu. Support for such killings by the police will not make a society more just. Mob justice is no justice at all. 

CONCLUSION : India cannot afford any more Sattankulams. We may not be able put a complete end to police violence, but we can reduce its incidence.