Introduction

In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India, made oral observations condemning the 2022 incident involving four Gujarat Police officers.
These officers had publicly flogged some men, restraining them to a pole, under the allegation of disrupting a garba event in the Kheda district.

Kheda Incident

Public Flogging and Video Documentation: The incident in question involved the public flogging of some men who were tied to a pole. Shockingly, videos of the brutal act were also recorded.
Lack of Legal Authority: Justice B.R. Gavai questioned whether the officers had any legal authority to restrain individuals in such a manner and subject them to physical abuse. Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed similar concerns.

Human Rights: Police misconduct and brutality violate citizens’ fundamental rights, including the right to life, liberty, dignity, equality, and justice. They also breach international human rights standards.
Rule of Law: Such actions undermine democratic societies based on the rule of law, diminishing law enforcement agencies’ legitimacy and fostering a culture of impunity where police act as judge, jury, and executioner.
Professionalism: Police misconduct erodes the professionalism, integrity, and morale of the police force. It negatively impacts training, discipline, supervision, and leadership, pressuring honest officers to conform to unethical practices.
Social Harmony: Police misconduct disrupts social cohesion, breeding resentment, fear, anger, and distrust, especially among marginalized groups. It contributes to social conflicts, violence, and extremism, threatening national peace and stability.

Supreme Court’s Historical Verdict: The actions of the police officers were found to be in contempt of the Supreme Court’s landmark D.K. Basu judgment of 1996. This judgment emphasized the importance of protecting individuals from torture and abuse by the police and law-enforcing officers.
Prohibition of Third-Degree Methods: The D.K. Basu verdict explicitly prohibited the use of “third degree” methods or torture during interrogation and investigation.

Ignorance of Law: Justices Gavai and Mehta were not convinced by the argument put forth by senior advocate Siddharth Dave, representing the police officers, that there was no “willful disobedience” of the D.K. Basu verdict by his clients. The Bench questioned whether ignorance of the law could serve as a defence in this context.
Duty of Police Officers: The Bench emphasized that every police officer must be aware of the legal principles established in the D.K. Basu judgment.

The Supreme Court’s strong stance against the actions of the Gujarat Police officers in this case underscores the importance of upholding the principles of justice, human rights, and the rule of law.
This incident serves as a reminder of the duty and responsibility that law enforcement agencies have in protecting the rights and dignity of individuals while performing their duties.