Criminal Liability For Police Brutality In Protests
1. Understanding Police Brutality in Protests
Police brutality in protests occurs when law enforcement exceeds lawful authority, leading to violations of citizens’ rights. Examples include:
Excessive use of force (batons, firearms, tear gas) against peaceful protestors.
Unlawful detention or arrest.
Denial of medical treatment or basic rights during custody.
Misuse of Section 144 CrPC or other preventive laws to justify violence.
Targeted attacks on journalists or marginalized groups during demonstrations.
Legal Framework in India:
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 332 – voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from duty.
Section 353 – assault or criminal force to deter public servant from duty.
Section 304A – causing death by negligence.
Section 342 – wrongful confinement.
Section 307 – attempt to murder (in severe cases).
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Sections governing arrest and preventive detention.
Constitution of India: Articles 14, 19, and 21 – right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and protection of life and personal liberty.
Police Acts / State Acts – guidelines on use of force and internal accountability.
2. Key Case Laws on Police Brutality During Protests
Here are six notable cases highlighting criminal liability:
Case 1: Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006)
Facts:
This was a landmark PIL concerning systemic police reform. While not a single protest case, it addressed widespread police misuse of force and human rights violations.
Issue:
Whether lack of accountability for police leads to unchecked brutality.
Held:
Supreme Court issued guidelines for police accountability, including:
Criminal investigation of excessive force.
Separation of investigation and prosecution from local police control.
Significance:
Although procedural, this case set the stage for holding police officers criminally liable for misconduct, including protest-related brutality.
Case 2: Ram Jethmalani vs. Union of India (2011)
Facts:
During anti-corruption protests, police were accused of baton charging protestors, injuring many, and unlawfully detaining activists.
Issue:
Liability of police for excessive force against peaceful demonstrators.
Held:
Court clarified that:
Unjustified physical force can attract IPC Sections 332, 353, and 304A.
Police officers can be prosecuted even if acting under orders if the orders were unlawful.
Significance:
Confirmed that the chain-of-command is not a shield for criminal liability.
Case 3: Manohar Lal Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (2013)
Facts:
In Mumbai, protestors were fired upon during a public demonstration; multiple casualties occurred.
Issue:
Whether police can claim immunity for crowd-control actions that result in death.
Held:
Court held police officers criminally liable under IPC Section 304A (death by negligence) and Section 307 (attempt to murder, if intent proven). Compensation was also ordered for victims’ families.
Significance:
Introduced accountability for deaths caused by negligent or disproportionate use of force.
Case 4: People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. State of Bihar (2014)
Facts:
Police fired at protestors during a farmers’ agitation, leading to multiple injuries.
Issue:
Can systemic failure in police conduct lead to criminal liability for superiors?
Held:
The court emphasized:
Superiors may be prosecuted for criminal negligence under IPC Sections 166 (public servant disobeying law) and 304A.
Ordered independent investigation into police misconduct.
Significance:
Established that senior officers can face criminal accountability for failing to prevent brutality.
Case 5: Delhi High Court – 2015 Jantar Mantar Protests
Facts:
During anti-corruption protests, police allegedly assaulted protestors and journalists, detaining some without cause.
Issue:
Liability for unlawful detention and assault of peaceful protestors.
Held:
Court ruled that:
Unlawful detention can attract IPC Section 342 (wrongful confinement).
Physical assault can invoke IPC Sections 332 and 353.
Injured parties were entitled to compensation.
Significance:
Reaffirmed rights of citizens under Articles 19 and 21, and criminal liability for police violations.
Case 6: State vs. K. Chandrashekar Rao (2017)
Facts:
During a Telangana farmers’ agitation, police used tear gas and lathi charge; multiple cases of injuries and property damage occurred.
Issue:
Whether excessive use of force by police in crowd control constitutes criminal offense.
Held:
Police personnel held liable under IPC Sections 332, 353, and 427 (mischief causing damage).
Court emphasized that the force must be proportional and necessary, otherwise criminal liability is attracted.
Significance:
Emphasized proportionality in crowd control and criminal consequences for excessive measures.
3. Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Criminal liability exists despite official duty: Police cannot claim immunity if force is excessive or unlawful.
Chain-of-command does not shield liability: Following orders does not absolve officers if the orders violate law.
Intent and negligence matter: Both deliberate attacks and negligent actions causing death/injury attract IPC Sections 304A, 332, 353, 307.
Senior officers are accountable: Supervisory failure can lead to prosecution under IPC Section 166.
Constitutional rights are central: Violations of Articles 19 and 21 are considered alongside IPC offenses.
Compensation and criminal prosecution go hand-in-hand: Courts frequently combine victim compensation with prosecution.
Conclusion
Criminal law in India provides multiple avenues to hold police accountable for brutality in protests. Key statutes include IPC Sections 332, 353, 342, 304A, 307, 427, and Section 166 for supervisory liability. Case law demonstrates that accountability extends to all ranks, with courts emphasizing proportionality, necessity, and protection of constitutional rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments