Tackling the pandemic of deaths in police custody across country
ordered only in 13 such cases and a mere seven police personnel were chargesheeted, with not even a single conviction resulting out of it. For example, in Gujarat, 180 custodial deaths were reported from 2001-16 (last year for which official figures have been published), and not even a single police official has been convicted for the same. So grim is the issue.
Even so, the figures released by NCRB have been widely criticised to underestimate the disquietude. In fact, the Government of India, in a statement made on the floor of the Rajya Sabha, admitted that, from 2015-18, the National Human Rights Commission registered 4,920 cases of custodial deaths, of which 442 deaths were reported in police custody. The Asian Centre for Human Rights estimates an average of five custodial deaths per day in 2017-18, recording an uptick from 4 deaths from 2001-10.
COURSE CORRECTION
Sadly so, the carte blanche handed out to police that permits them to inflict deaths and torture not just betrays the fundamental human rights of undertrials, but also, painfully, undermines the rule of law. It is in this context that the need for a course correction in law is felt as never before, for it needs to be suitably amended.
To start with, a reverse burden of proof clause may be inserted in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This will, inevitably, place the burden of proof on the police officers for any injury caused to the person in custody.
In a similar streak, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CRPC), should be amended. At present, as per Sections 53 and 54 of the CRPC, an accused is medically examined only in two circumstances - either at the behest of a police officer or at the request of the accused himself. This renders the accused at the mercy of police officers. In this respect, it would be advisable to heed to the suggestion put forth by the law commission’s working paper, which suggests that the arrestee undergoes a mandatory medical examination to enquire for injuries in custody.
In order to insure from possible threats and acts of vengeance against victims, complainants and witnesses, Parliament should sew up a codified mechanism, that should not just safeguard their rights, but also provide adequate compensation. Indubitably, this will have an inspiriting effect, and bolster up the courage to stand up against torture.
ANTI-TORTURE LAW
Despite the International Court of Justice declaring that a permanent moratorium on torture has become a part of international customary law and therefore, no country can depart from the principle – India has not yet ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). Therefore, Parliament should immediately ratify UNCAT and, accordingly, enact an exclusive anti-torture legislation. Herein, a definition of ‘torture’ and ‘custodial death’ may be crystallised, eventually setting out the strictest punishment for such crimes.
Apart from the legal interventions, the idea of sensitising police should not remain understated. The Centre and states should extensively indoctrinate non-coercive and non-invasive interrogation methods, among other administrative and training measures in this direction.
Holding that policemen who commit criminal acts deserve a stricter punishment, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of CBI v. Kishore Singh & Ors remarked, “If the protector becomes the predator, civilised society will cease to exist. As the Bible says “If the salt has lost its flavour, wherewith shall it be salted? (Matthew 5, Mark 9.50 and Luke 14.34-35)”, or as the ancient Romans used to say, “Who will guard the Praetorian Guards”.
It would serve well for the Cyberabad police commissioner to cast his eye over the observations.
The Prime Minister’s New India, certainly, cannot be bereft of rule of law. The time has also come to focus on an inclusive India, which should take pride in securing fundamental human rights for the undertrials, and safeguarding the nation’s constitutional morality.n