Protectors to violators: Need to raise accountability bar

CHENNAI: Less than a month after the killing of George Floyd by the Minneapolis police that sparked global outrage, their counterparts in Sathankulam unleashed a brutality on a father and son for allegedly violating lockdown rules imposed to check Covid-19.The deaths of P Jeyaraj and his son J Beniks have shaken the collective conscience of civil society. The reluctance of the police department to take responsibility for the illegal actions of its personnel is a huge cause of concern and challenges the rule of law upon which society is founded. The lack of a rigid stance in condemning police excesses often weakens the confidence of common man in the system.The act of protecting citizens is associated with authority, which has become synonymous with force. An analysis of how the police department functions tells us that the portfolio of police administration, more often than not, is held by the heads of states. That is perhaps why an indictment of any police officer is viewed mostly through a political lens, thereby conveniently ignoring unlawful transgressions. In the process, the wrongful act is protected under the guise of saving the face of the office of that head of state or protecting the image and reputation of the government.It is also common knowledge that incongruous wrongful commissions and omissions of erring personnel are often shielded by superiors in the police department in their anxious attempt to protect the glory of the institution rather than upholding the supremacy of the rule of law. The play-safe-criticism approach does not work, rather it erodes the fabric of society.There are several disconcerting questions that arise from repeated instances of police excesses resulting in custodial deaths. In India, the law concerning police and its administration belongs to the colonial era. The first and foremost legislation on police that is widely followed, even today is the Indian Police Act, 1861 that was enacted by the British after the famous Sepoy Revolt of 1857. The primary objective of the law was to control and suppress the people by treating them as colonial subjects. Unfortunately free India not only inherited those colonial-era police laws but also inherited the ghost of that colonial attitude.In spite of constitutional guarantees, a number of statutory protections and guidelines, police excesses have continued unabated.According to the Annual Report, 2017-2018 of the National Human Rights Commission, about 2,896 cases of deaths in judicial custody and 250 cases of deaths in police custody were recorded. Only a couple of years ago, the Tamil Nadu submitted before the Madras high court that 157 cases of custodial deaths were reported in the state between 2012 and 2016. From April 2017 to March 2018, TN intimated the state human Rights commission about 11 cases of police custodial deaths and 72 cases of judicial custodial deaths. In Tamil Nadu, more than a quarter of century ago, the (late) Justice Khalid Commission was constituted to probe into the police excesses and custodial torture. Though the report was submitted on time, the recommendations are yet to see light of the day. Despite the many attempts to bring accountability, the country is yet to have a mechanism in place to check these atrocities. Though India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on October 14, 1997, it is yet to ratify it. The fervent pleas from the National Human Rights Commission in this regard have had no effect. The 273rd Law Commission report had also recommended various amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and submitted a draft bill called the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2017 to bring about compatibility with international standards. But no progress worth a mention has even been attempted so far.Civil society cannot be expected to remain neutral for long, especially when the rule of law is challenged with rampant police excesses and unjust custodial deaths. The law is clear. It does not postulate custodial cruelty. It is only the perverse desire to inflict harm upon the detainee that indicates a pathological problem which poses a serious threat to orderly society.(The writer is an advocate at the Madras high court)