Police Torture and Unaccountability in India

Context:

• A comprehensive study titled "Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2024" was recently released by Common Cause (NGO), in collaboration with the Lokniti Programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS).
• The report highlights systemic issues of police violence, torture, and lack of accountability, based on interactions with 8,276 police personnel across 17 states and Union Territories.

Understanding Torture - International and Indian Context:

• Definition under UNCAT (1984): Torture involves the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain by or at the behest of a public official, for purposes such as punishment, coercion, or discrimination.
• India’s position: Signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997, but not ratified, making it non-binding legally.

Key Findings of the Report:

• Perception of 'tough methods' in policing:
  • 55% of police personnel support the use of tough methods to create fear among the public.
  • Ambiguity exists on what constitutes “tough methods” vs. torture.
• Mob violence and encounters:
  • 25% justify mob justice in cases like sexual harassment and child lifting.
  • 22% believe in encounter killings over legal trials.
  • 74%, however, support legal procedures even for dangerous criminals.
• Compliance with arrest procedures:
  • 41% of police claim procedures are “always” followed.
  • 24% admit procedures are “rarely or never” followed.
  • Kerala reports highest compliance at 94%.
• Use of third-degree methods:
  • 30% justify third-degree torture in serious cases. 9% justify even in petty cases.
  • Victims mostly from marginalised groups: Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, illiterates, and slum dwellers.
• Custodial deaths:
  • Agency - custodial deaths reported (2020): NCRB (76), NHRC (70), National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT, a civil society initiative) (111).
  • Zero convictions for custodial deaths during 2018–2022.
• Judicial, medical apathy:
  • Judiciary:
    • There was consensus among lawyers and judges that confessions to the police should never be made inadmissible.
    • Magistrates often act as “silent spectators”, rarely interacting with the accused or recording arrest details.
  • Medical examination: Conducted by doctors without forensic expertise. Sometimes done by eye specialists or anesthesiologists.
  • National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): It has been criticised for not defining torture and for its “coloured attitude” towards the victims of torture.
• Encouraging insights from the report:
  • 79% of police favour human rights training.
  • 71% support prevention of torture.
  • 79% favour evidence-based interrogation techniques.

Structural Causes Behind Police Torture in India:

• Colonial legacy of policing.
• Lack of accountability
• Political and bureaucratic pressure for quick results.
• Inadequate training and legal literacy.
• Public tolerance of extra-legal methods due to delays in the criminal justice system.

Global Practices - A Comparative Perspective:

• United States: Brutal interrogation at Guantanamo Bay.
• Iraq: Torture at Abu Ghraib prison.
• Russia, China, Pakistan: Poor human rights records in custodial practices.

Recommendations and Way Forward:

• Enact a comprehensive anti-torture law.
• Malimath Committee: Suggested that confessions made before a senior police officer of the rank of Superintendent or above should be admissible in evidence with safeguards to prevent coercion.
• The Law Commission of India (in its 69th Report (1977)): Proposed introducing Section 26A in the Indian Evidence Act to make confessions before senior police officers admissible.
• Ratify UNCAT.
• Implement Supreme Court directives for insulating police from external pressures.
• Promote professionalism, accountability, and human rights sensitivity in policing.

Conclusion:

• The Common Cause-CSDS report paints a sobering picture of the persistence of police torture and the lack of institutional accountability in India.
• The findings reveal deep-rooted structural and attitudinal issues within the police force.
• Therefore, a humane, rights-based, and professional police force is not only essential for upholding the rule of law but also for rebuilding public trust in the criminal justice system.
• Addressing police torture is not just a legal or administrative imperative - it is a moral and constitutional duty.

Q1. What is the status of India with respect to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)?

Ans. India signed the UNCAT in 1997 but has not ratified it, making it not legally binding on the country.

Q2. What are the key reasons behind the continued use of torture by police in India?

Ans. The persistence of torture is due to the colonial legacy of policing, lack of accountability, political pressure, poor training, and public acceptance of extra-legal methods.

Q3. Which sections of society are most vulnerable to police torture according to the Common Cause-CSDS report?

Ans. The victims are primarily from marginalised communities such as Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, illiterates, and urban poor.

Q4. How does the Indian judiciary and medical system contribute to the problem of custodial torture?

Ans. Magistrates often remain passive, and medical examinations are frequently done by non-specialists, failing to identify or record signs of torture.

Q5. What measures are recommended to make policing more humane and accountable in India?

Ans. The report recommends ratifying UNCAT, enacting anti-torture legislation, ensuring human rights training, and implementing Supreme Court-mandated police reforms.

Source:IE