Police Excesses And Accountability Under Criminal Law
🧾 1. Introduction: Police Excesses and Accountability
Police excesses refer to instances where police officers misuse their power or authority, resulting in violations of citizens’ constitutional and human rights.
Such excesses may include:
Custodial torture or deaths
Fake encounters
Illegal detention and arrests
Fabrication of evidence
Sexual violence or humiliation during interrogation
These acts directly violate:
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 22 – Protection against arbitrary arrest
Article 14 – Equality before law
Article 20(3) – Protection against self-incrimination
⚖️ 2. Legal Framework for Police Accountability
Indian law provides multiple criminal and procedural safeguards to curb police misconduct:
A. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 166 – Public servant disobeying law to cause injury.
Section 330 & 331 – Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession.
Section 302 – Murder (applicable in custodial death cases).
Section 342 & 348 – Wrongful confinement to extort confession.
B. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Section 154–157 – Mandatory registration and investigation of FIRs.
Section 176(1A) – Judicial inquiry into custodial deaths or rape.
Section 197 – Sanction requirement for prosecuting public servants (not applicable when act is outside official duty).
C. Constitutional Provisions
Article 32 & 226 – Judicial remedies for violation of fundamental rights.
Article 355 – Duty of the Union to protect states from internal disturbance (includes police excesses).
D. Institutional Mechanisms
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) – Monitors custodial deaths, issues guidelines.
State Police Complaints Authorities – Recommended by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006).
⚖️ 3. Landmark Case Laws on Police Excesses and Accountability
(1) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
A social organization highlighted numerous cases of custodial torture and deaths across India. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance through a PIL.
Judgment:
The Court issued 11 mandatory guidelines for arrest and detention, including:
Police must wear identification tags.
Arrest memo must be signed by a witness.
Family/friends must be informed.
Medical examination every 48 hours.
Copies of all documents sent to Magistrate.
Significance:
This case became the foundation for police accountability in custodial procedures.
Violation of these guidelines amounts to contempt of court and criminal misconduct.
(2) Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
A retired DGP filed a PIL seeking police reforms to prevent political interference and ensure accountability.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court directed the central and state governments to implement major police reforms:
Establish State Security Commissions to insulate police from political pressure.
Set up Police Establishment Boards for fair transfers/postings.
Create Police Complaints Authorities at the state and district levels.
Fixed minimum tenure for DGPs and senior officers.
Set up National Security Commission for central police forces.
Significance:
This landmark ruling institutionalized structural accountability within the police system, making it a milestone in police reforms.
(3) Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
A young man was taken into police custody and later found dead on railway tracks. The State claimed it was an accident.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held the State vicariously liable for custodial death and directed compensation to the victim’s mother under Article 21.
Significance:
Established that constitutional courts can award monetary compensation for police excesses.
Recognized the principle of public law remedy for human rights violations.
Reinforced that fundamental rights violations by police are the State’s responsibility.
(4) State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995) 4 SCC 262
Facts:
A person died in police custody due to brutal torture. Lower courts imposed only light punishment on the guilty officers.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court criticized the “lenient approach” of the courts and enhanced punishment.
It declared:
“Police excesses and the brutality of custodial violence are crimes against humanity.”
Significance:
The Court stressed that police officers must be punished severely to deter further misconduct.
It underlined the principle of individual criminal responsibility for acts of torture.
(5) People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635
Facts:
This case dealt with fake encounter killings by the Mumbai police. The PUCL sought guidelines to ensure that such encounters are investigated impartially.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down 16 guidelines to be followed in every police encounter resulting in death, including:
Immediate registration of FIR and independent investigation.
Mandatory magisterial inquiry.
Autopsy and videography of the scene.
Informing NHRC or State Human Rights Commission.
Suspension of the involved officers during inquiry.
Significance:
These guidelines ensure accountability for encounter killings and protect against abuse of “self-defense” claims by the police.
🧩 4. Key Legal Principles Emerging from Case Law
| Principle | Case | Essence |
|---|---|---|
| Safeguards during arrest and detention | D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal | Mandatory arrest guidelines to prevent torture |
| Structural police reforms | Prakash Singh v. Union of India | Independent bodies for oversight and complaints |
| State liability for police misconduct | Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa | State must pay compensation for custodial death |
| Harsh punishment for custodial crimes | Shyamsunder Trivedi Case | Custodial violence is a crime against humanity |
| Regulation of encounter killings | PUCL v. State of Maharashtra | 16 guidelines for independent investigation |
🏛️ 5. Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has played a transformative role in holding police accountable under criminal law.
However, persistent incidents of custodial deaths, unlawful encounters, and misuse of power reveal that implementation remains weak.
True accountability requires:
Independent oversight bodies with real power,
Prosecution without sanction barriers,
Mandatory compensation and prosecution for proven excesses, and
A culture of human rights and professionalism in policing.
Only then can the police be a protector of law, not a violator of it.
RELATED Blog
0 comments