Why in the News?

The data shows that many police officers accept using forceful methods like shouting, threatening, slapping, or even harsh physical torture during investigations, even for small crimes.

How the police view custodial torture in India

What proportion of police support violence against serious offenders for the greater good?

Majority Support Violence: 63% of police personnel believe it’s acceptable to use violence on serious offenders for the greater good of society. Eg: Officers may justify beating a suspected murderer if they believe it helps prevent future crimes.
Strong vs Moderate Support: Among those who agreed, 22% strongly agreed and 41% moderately agreed with using violence. Eg: Some officers might strongly feel torture is necessary in terrorism cases, while others may support limited force.
Opposition is Minor: Only 35% of police personnel opposed the idea of violence, showing that a minority disagrees with such practices. Eg: These officers might believe in legal methods like investigation and interrogation without physical harm.

How does this infringe Fundamental Rights?

Violation of Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): Coercive actions like custodial torture and third-degree methods breach the right to live with dignity. Eg: A suspect beaten during interrogation suffers physical and mental trauma without legal conviction.
Denial of Protection Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3)): Forcing suspects to confess under pressure or torture violates their right to remain silent during interrogation. Eg: A person forced to admit guilt in a theft case, even if innocent, due to police pressure.
Breach of Equality Before Law (Article 14): Targeting specific individuals like history-sheeters or the poor with harsh treatment undermines equal legal protection. Eg: Repeat offenders being tortured without due process, while others get fair legal treatment.

Why do many police personnel justify torture in national security and serious crime cases?

Perceived Urgency in National Security Cases: Many police believe torture is necessary to extract crucial information in time-sensitive situations like terrorism. Eg: 42% of police personnel strongly supported torture during terrorism-related interrogations.
Belief in Strong Punishment for Heinous Crimes: Officers feel that serious crimes such as rape and murder deserve harsher treatment to deliver justice quickly. Eg: 34% of police strongly supported torture in cases involving rape and serious violent crimes.
Assumption that Certain Suspects Are Repeat Offenders: There’s a mindset that “history-sheeters” don’t respond to normal interrogation, justifying harsher methods. Eg: 28% of police strongly agreed that torture is justified for repeat or habitual offenders.

What are the coercive methods that police frequently justify during interrogations, even for minor offenses?

Verbal Abuse and Threats: A large portion of police personnel find it acceptable to verbally abuse or threaten suspects in minor crimes like theft. Eg: 49% said such verbal abuse and threats are justified even in petty cases.
Slapping Suspects: Physical force such as slapping is often seen as a mild and acceptable tactic. Eg: 32% of police justified slapping suspects during minor offence investigations.
Use of Third-Degree Methods: Even for minor crimes, some support more extreme measures like third-degree torture to get confessions. Eg: 9% of personnel justified using third-degree methods in minor cases.
Threats as Routine Practice: Many police reported that threats are a frequent part of their interrogation techniques. Eg: 26% said threats are used “often” during investigations; 34% said they occur “sometimes.”
Light Force Considered Normal: Slapping or applying light physical force is not seen as excessive by a significant number of police officers. Eg: 18% admitted it’s commonly done, and another 28% said it happens occasionally.

What are the steps taken by the Indian government?

Implementation of Guidelines by Supreme Court: The government follows the D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1996) guidelines issued by the Supreme Court to prevent custodial violence. Eg: Police are required to inform relatives of an arrest and maintain arrest records.
Enactment of Human Rights Protection Laws: The government established legal bodies to monitor human rights violations. Eg: The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 led to the creation of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
Police Reforms and Training Programs: Reforms aim to modernize police functioning and encourage ethical conduct through training. Eg: The National Police Mission promotes citizen-centric policing and sensitization on human rights.

Way forward:

Independent Investigation and Accountability Mechanisms: Establish robust, independent bodies at the state level to investigate complaints of custodial violence and misconduct. Eg: Set up Police Complaints Authorities (PCA) with judicial oversight to ensure fair and transparent inquiries into custodial torture.
Comprehensive Sensitisation and Legal Training: Mandate regular training for police personnel on human rights, ethical investigation practices, and legal procedures. Eg: Include modules on constitutional rights, custodial safeguards, and mental health awareness in police academies and refresher courses.

Mains PYQ:

[UPSC 2019] The police reforms in India have been left halfway due to lack of political will. Critically analyse.

Linkage: The ongoing justification of coercive tactics, even in minor crimes, shows ineffective implementation of police reforms in India. It remains incomplete, largely due to a lack of political will, weak implementation, and cultural resistance within the force.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now