In a recent judgment on a custodial death case from Chhattisgarh, the Chhattisgarh High Court made an observation that the police officers involved in the death of a man in custody appeared to have intended “to teach a lesson” to the victim for misbehaving in public.

Background of Chhattisgarh Custodial Death Case

• A Dalit man, arrested for alleged public misbehaviour, died in custody just hours after a medical check found no injuries. 
  • However, the postmortem revealed 26 wounds. 
• Intention was “to teach a lesson”: Four police officers were convicted of murder by the trial court, but the High Court reduced it to culpable homicide, citing lack of intent but knowledge that the assault could cause death.

Concerns with Normalising Custodial Violence

•  Vigilante Logic: The statement, quietly embedded in a detailed legal opinion, is not just an off-hand remark. 
  • It is the reflection of an institutional mindset that rationalises state violence not as a constitutional aberration but as a tolerable, even necessary, tool for discipline.
• Police as Enforcers, Not Judges: The police’s role is to enforce the law, not to act as judges or to administer punishment. 
  • Delivering “lessons” is the domain of courts, and even then, strictly within legal boundaries.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: Such actions constitute a direct violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity) and Article 14 (Equality Before Law) of the Indian Constitution.
  • No individual has the right to take another’s life or dignity except through a procedure established by law.
• Legitimising Brutality: When a constitutional court accepts “teaching a lesson” as a partial justification for custodial violence, it normalises police brutality and reinforces a culture where officers feel emboldened to act as both enforcer and judge. 
  • It creates a moral shelter for extra-legal instincts, suggesting that state brutality is regrettable but sometimes understandable, and that some people might even deserve it.
• Against Separation of Powers: This mindset directly contravenes the principle of separation of powers, blurring the lines between investigation, judgment, and punishment.

The Pervasive Problem of Custodial Violence

• Alarming Statistics: Between 2001 and 2020, there were 1,888 custodial deaths, yet only 26 police personnel were convicted. This highlights a severe lack of accountability.
• Supreme Court’s Stance: The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the need for procedural safeguards, transparency, and strict limits on police force.
  • K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal: Landmark guidelines mandate nameplates for all police personnel, informing the family of the arrested person, a medical examination every 48 hours, and the right to meet a lawyer.
  • Prakash Singh Case (2006): Recommendations included police reforms like separating law and order functions from investigation and preventing frequent transfers.
• Failure of Implementation: Despite clear judicial guidelines, compliance remains sporadic and enforcement weak, with many guidelines existing only on paper.
• “Worst Crime in Civilised Society”: Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer rightly termed custodial violence as “one of the worst crimes in civilised society”.

The Ignored Caste Angle

• Structural Violence: The trial court acquitted the accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), and the High Court did not interfere. 
  • This is because courts often demand explicit proof that the violence was caste-motivated, such as casteist slurs during the assault.
• Blind to Lived Reality: This narrow interpretation ignores the structural nature of caste-coded enforcement and the inherent power dynamics at play, particularly in rural India. 
• Disproportionate Impact: Custodial deaths disproportionately affect Dalits, Adivasis, and the poor.
  • Unless the legal system acknowledges this structural power, justice will continue to be denied to those the SC/ST Act was designed to protect.

The Judiciary’s Indispensable Role

• Shaping Legal Reasoning and Policy: Judicial language shapes legal reasoning and, in turn, policy. 
  • When courts rationalise state violence, even subtly, it sends a powerful message that state brutality is sometimes acceptable.
• Upholding Constitutional Order: Justifying custodial violence, especially for minor offences like public nuisance, dangerously blurs the line between legitimate law enforcement and authoritarianism. 
  • Deterrence must come from legal punishment, not state-sanctioned force.

Way Forward

• Judicial Accountability and Sensitivity: Judges must strictly avoid language that normalises state violence. They must not provide moral shelter to extra-legal instincts.
• Robust Application of SC/ST Act: Courts must broaden their interpretation of the SC/ST Act to consider structural violence and power dynamics, rather than demanding only explicit proof of caste-motivated abuse.
• Enact Anti-Torture Law: India signed the UN Convention Against Torture in 1997 but has not yet ratified it. Enacting a comprehensive domestic anti-torture law is crucial.
• Implement Police Reforms: The recommendations of the Prakash Singh judgment must be fully implemented. This includes sensitising police personnel and insulating them from political interference.
• Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms:
  • Independent Police Complaint Authorities must be made more independent and powerful.
  • CCTV cameras should be installed in all police stations, and their footage must be securely maintained.
• Justice is Due Process: Justice means due process, not arbitrary punishment or “teaching lessons”. The police’s duty is to ensure security, not to deliver punishment.

Conclusion

Building a just society requires acknowledging that when the state itself becomes an oppressor, citizens lose their last refuge. Justice must embody proportionality, dignity, and unwavering adherence to due process, never resorting to violence disguised as correction.

DOWNLOAD PDF