HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION IN POLICE WORK THROUGH THE LENSES OF CORRUPTION: AN ANALYSIS WITH CASE LAWS

INTRODUCTION

“The basic mission of Police is to prevent crime and disorder. The public are the police and the police are the public, and both share the same responsibility for community safety.” - Stephen Covey

Police is an institution which should be easily accessible and approachable to all the classes and strata of the social structure we are all a part of. The role of Police is at a time supposed to very simple but at the same time is supposed to be very difficult or rather complicated as well, which in turn leads to the vesting of huge amount of responsibilities and powers in the hands of the police which in turn require even large amount of resources (both, human as well as technological) in order to justify the work of public service they have been assigned to.

The sanctity of human rights is a cornerstone of modern democratic societies, enshrined in various international conventions and domestic laws. However, the grim reality of human rights violations by those sworn to protect them – the police – undermines the very fabric of our societies. Corruption within police ranks serves as a significant catalyst for these violations, perpetuating a culture of impunity and eroding trust in law enforcement agencies. As per UDHR 1948, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. In this declaration, we can find many human rights which are recognised as fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. Such as equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of movement, protection of life and personal liberty, etc.

This paper aims to bring forward the atrocities by the police officials which result in a grave violation of the human rights of the public. It further states the problems faced by the citizens in filing a complaint against the police and it also deals with the accountability of police during infringement of Human Rights. By examining existing literature, case laws, and empirical evidence, this seeks to explore the causes, consequences, and implications of police corruption on human rights. In recent years, the issue of police corruption and human rights violations has gained significant attention globally, with various international organizations and human rights groups highlighting the need for effective accountability mechanisms and reform. In this context, it is essential to examine the nexus between police corruption and human rights violations, with a view to identifying strategies for addressing this critical challenge.

HISTORY OF POLICE AND POLICING IN INDIA

The term police has been derived from the Latin word ‘politia’ which means the condition of a State. According to Oxford dictionary, the term police means a system of regulation for the preservation of order and enforcement of law; the internal government of a State. This term indicates the purposeful maintaining of public order, protection of property, protection of property from the hazardous activity and commission of lawful acts to serve peace in people and the nation. The role of police is becoming more important due to growing violence, social conflicts and serious threats of terrorist activities.

If we go back to our past exact reference of criminal justice organization are not available, but in Mauryan period (324 BC183BC) express important features of the criminal justice system. Arthasastra of Kautilya which was written around 310 BC enlighten about state of the society and the administration, system of administrating justice and also the state of crime. During Ashoka’s reign (304BC-232BC), the criminal justice system was tempered and moderated by the Buddhist philosophy, piety and nonviolence.

During the Gupta period, Dandikas were the highest ranked police officers Megasthenes and Fahien wrote a detailed account of the administration: Dandika were the highest ranked police officers, Rabasika or Rahasaga was in charge of the secret and confidential service and Chauro, Dhanmika and Dandaparika were other police officers under Dandikas, Nagar Shreshthi was responsible for peace and security of the city this criminal justice system continued for five to six hundred years during the Gupta period. During the medieval period, the Faujdar was the head of criminal justice administration at the provincial level as a chief executive.

Kotwal was the administrative owner of criminal justice system of the district and also serve as magistrate, head of the police and Municipal office. Choukidar was responsible for the prevention and detection of crimes at the village level. During the Mughal era government was autocratic and military in nature. The British came to India as traders in 1612 (the leading organizer was East India Company) and after 1792, abolished zamindari system of maintaining law and appointed thanedars who were now made responsible for the maintenance of law and order. In 1843, Sir Charles Napier reorganized the native police system on the basis of a colonial model of police, namely Royal Irish Constabulary, his system was based on two basic principles; first, the police must be completely separated from the military, and second, they must act as an independent body, assisting Collectors in discharging the responsibilities for law and order, but under their officers. Napier model was the main principle of the Police Commission of 1860 which designed the present police force of India. The Police Commission was appointed in August 1860 with the aim of making the police an efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime. The Indian Police Act (IPA) of 1861 imposed a uniform police system on the entire country. This Act established organization of police forces, their responsibility of the various provincial governments and implemented throughout the country.

During Independence in 1947, India became independent but the country itself was partitioned. This partition and subsequent industrialization, urbanization and development activities multiplied police functions and the resultant problems after the attainment of independence all the European officers left India. Since they constituted a very large portion of superior services, there was a wide gap in the rank of the services, which had to be filled in by hurried promotions of subordinate Indian officers. In spite of this and because of the extra work put in by senior Indian officers and the Inherent capacity of the organisation, it was able to bear effectively the strengths of the disturbances and succeeded and giving “Skeleton” police services to the people.

THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF THE POLICE SYSTEM IN INDIA

The current structure of the police system in India is a complex hierarchy that operates at multiple levels, with varying degrees of autonomy and accountability. At the apex of the structure is the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is responsible for overseeing the overall functioning of the police force across the country. Below the Ministry, there are several Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), including the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Border Security Force (BSF), and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), among others. These forces are responsible for maintaining law and order, combating terrorism, and securing the country's borders.

At the state level, the police force is headed by the Director General of Police (DGP), who is responsible for overseeing the entire police force within the state. Below the DGP, there are several ranks, including the Inspector General of Police (IGP), the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), and the Superintendent of Police (SP). These officers are responsible for maintaining law and order, investigating crimes, and overseeing the functioning of the police force within their respective jurisdictions.

At the district level, the police force is headed by the Superintendent of Police (SP), who is responsible for maintaining law and order, investigating crimes, and overseeing the functioning of the police force within the district. Below the SP, there are several ranks, including the Additional Superintendent of Police (Addl. SP), the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), and the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP). These officers are responsible for assisting the SP in maintaining law and order, investigating crimes, and overseeing the functioning of the police force within the district.

At the police station level, the police force is headed by the Station House Officer (SHO), who is responsible for maintaining law and order, investigating crimes, and overseeing the functioning of the police force within the police station's jurisdiction. Below the SHO, there are several ranks, including the Sub-Inspector (SI), the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), and the Constable. These officers are responsible for assisting the SHO in maintaining law and order, investigating crimes, and overseeing the functioning of the police force within the police station's jurisdiction. In addition to these ranks, there are also several specialized units within the police force, including the Crime Branch, the Intelligence Bureau, and the Forensic Science Laboratory. These units are responsible for investigating specialized crimes, gathering intelligence, and analyzing forensic evidence.

POLICING IN DEMOCRACIES

The police shall provide for the protection of public safety and the rights of all persons. The police shall be an independent organ of the Executive and shall be subject to the direction of the courts and bound by their orders. Every law enforcement agency shall be representative of and responsive and accountable to the community as a whole All police officials are part of, and have a duty to serve, the community Members of the police shall exercise their functions, powers and duties as impartial servants of the general public and the Government of the day. In the exercise of his or her rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law Limitations on the exercise of rights and freedoms shall be only those necessary to secure recognition and respect for the rights of others, and for meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his or her country, directly or through freely chosen representatives The will of the people shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage Everyone has the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, assembly and association.

POLICE AND CORRUPTION

The Corruption in India is all pervasive leaving no section of life untouched. Corruption is spread over in the society in several forms. Corruption within the Indian police organization is not a new phenomenon and folklore has always associated police with extortion and brutality. At present, corruption exists in many forms and in every rank and has reached an alarming stage where some practices are not even considered deviant. The police Department is said to be the most corrupt department where bribes are taken by constables upwards to high status officers. What is surprising is that the police take money both from the accused and the complainants. “Corruption” is defined according to Webster’s dictionary, as inducement by mean of improper consideration to commit a violation of a duty. This inducement is not necessarily mean that it should include money only. This can be price rewards gifts or favour also. The Santhanam Committee Report 1964 defines corruption as “improper or selfish exercise of power and influence attached to a public office or to a special position one occupies in public life”.

Police corruption is a specific form of police misconduct designed to obtain financial benefits, other personal gain, and/or career advancement for a police officer or officers in exchange for not pursuing, or selectively pursuing, an investigation or arrest. One common form of police corruption is soliciting and/or accepting bribes in exchange for not reporting organized drug or prostitution rings or other illegal activities. Another example is police officers flouting the police code of conduct in order to secure convictions of suspects-for example, through the use of falsified evidence. More rarely, police officers may deliberately and systematically participate in organized crime themselves. In most major cities, there are internal affairs sections to investigate suspected police corruption or misconduct. Article 7 of the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials says that ‘Law enforcement officials shall not commit any act of corruption. They shall also rigorously oppose and combat all such acts.

REASONS BEHIND CORRUPTION IN POLICE SYSTEM:

No world is absolutely “clean” of corruption. In most developing countries corruption is widespread in everyday life. The society has learned to live with it considering corruption an integral part of their culture. country in the Corruption is usually an acceptable social phenomenon in developing countries and its level is much higher than in developed ones. It arises in the daily routines of the police. There are constant and variable factors that lead police officers to engaging in corrupt behavior. Constant factors are discretion, low level of supervision, low public visibility, internal solidarity, low salaries, and contact with lawbreakers. Usually officers may start to use the discretion to their advantage knowing that they are not supervised. Soon they gain more courage and serious corrupt behavior. Variable factors are influence by politics, integrity of leadership, legal opportunities for corruption, and moral cynicism. Justice in developing countries is quite corrupt too. It takes years to punish a corrupt police officer who tries to avoid prosecution by hiring experienced highly-paid lawyers.

CORRUPT POLICING LEADING TO GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Police brutality refers to various human rights violations committed by police officers. These violations can take various forms, including:

Excessive Use of Force: This includes physical violence, beatings, and unnecessary aggression against suspects or detainees. It often results in injury or even death.
Unlawful Killings: Instances where police officers cause the death of individuals without proper justification or due process.
Torture: Mental, physical, or sexual torture inflicted upon suspects or detainees during custody.
Racial Abuse: Discriminatory treatment based on race, ethnicity, or other personal characteristics.
Indiscriminate Use of Riot Control Agents: During protests or demonstrations, police may use riot control agents (such as tear gas) excessively or without proper cause.

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS DEPICTING POLICE BRUTALITY

Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar (1983) - In this case, the petitioner was detained for over 14 years after his acquittal by the Court. The petitioner sought compensation for his illegal detention. The Supreme Court ruled that the detention was wholly unjustified and ordered the Bihar Government to pay a sum of ₹30,000 and ₹5,000.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) - In this case, the facts were that the petitioner, a lawyer, was detained illegally after he was called for questioning by the police officers. When the family members of the petitioner enquired about his whereabouts, the police lied about his location. The Court held that the detention was illegal.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996) - In the case of D.K. Basu, the Supreme Court recognized custodial violence and police brutality. The Apex Court stated that “Custodial violence is an attack on the dignity of an individual”. The Court in this case gave several guidelines to be followed by the police while arresting a person.
Prakash Singh v. Union of India and Ors (2006) - In the instant case, Prakash Singh, the petitioner who served as the Director General of Police in the State of UP, post his retirement filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court seeking police reforms. The Apex Court gave mandatory provisions to be followed by every State and Union Territory, they are

A fixed tenure for the post of DGP (Director General of Police), IG (Inspector General of Police).
To insulate police from political influence, the Court directed for establishment of Police Establishment Boards (PEB), the body shall have the power to make postings and transfers of police.

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors (2020) - In this case, the petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition pleading with the Court to check and issue directions regarding the installation of Closed Circuit cameras in the police stations. The Supreme Court directed states to install surveillance cameras in the D.K. Basu case and the Shafhi Mohammad case, but it was not made necessary by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in this case gave orders consisting of several rules and guidelines:

An oversight committee to be set up at district and state levels.
State Human Rights Commission to be set up in every State. The positions are to be filled as and when a vacancy arises.

MEASURES TO REDUCE CORRUPTION IN POLICING SYSTEM -

Community policing: allows police to continuously operate in the same area in order to create a stronger bond with the common public. Eg. Community policing in Canada, individual officers are encouraged to engage in neighbourhood extracurriculars, particularly those involving at-risk youth.
Transparency in Service matter: A system could be designed where postings are automatically generated by a software system after a given time interval. Supreme Court (in Prakash Singh Case) sought a minimum tenure for the Inspector General of Police so that they are not transferred mid-term by politicians.
Ensure accountability: Public hearings, objective performance and efficiency indicators can be introduced to monitor the performance of the Police force. Prakash Singh judgement recommended setting up the State Police Complaints Authority, where common people aggrieved by police action could approach.
Better Remuneration and service benefits: It can have a positive impact on police personnel who become coarse and turn cynical due to stress, strain and frustration of the law enforcement profession.
Changing attitude of police leaders: There should be more flexibility, fluidity and individual innovativeness and initiative so that there would be meaningful deliberations and interactions at all levels of the force.
Innovative mechanisms: Efforts should be made to redefine the core areas of policing and identify and delink those duties and tasks that give ample scope for the lower rungs of police to resort to corrupt practices.
Use of Information Technology: Use of technology for reporting and handling of cases can play an important role in arresting corruption as non-registration of complaints is the most common grievance of citizens.

CONCLUSION WITH SUGGESTIONS :

Police often treat suspects, undertrials and detainees as animals. They do not care about the human rights of these people and this misconduct on the part of police results in as custodial death, custodial rape, grievous hurt, illegal custody, false imprisonment, etc. Police are given immunity by the statutes made by the legislators in order to save them from prosecution. With the police system being reformed from time to time, there’s still some hope that some day the police system will get truly reformed and there will be no case of infringement of human rights by the police officers. The main reason behind the police atrocities is the power-hungry politicians who use these police officers as their lapdogs. Despite the directions being given the Supreme Court of India, it takes decades to effectively implement any law to regulate the conduct of police.

The empirical evidence and case laws demonstrate the severity of human rights abuses facilitated by police corruption, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances. The victims of these abuses often belong to marginalized communities, who are already vulnerable to social and economic exclusion. The consequences of police corruption and human rights violations are far-reaching, undermining the rule of law, perpetuating inequality, and eroding trust in institutions. To address this critical challenge, it is essential to implement effective accountability mechanisms, enhance transparency, and promote community engagement. Moreover, it is crucial to address the root causes of police corruption, including inadequate training, poor working conditions, and the lack of effective oversight mechanisms. This requires a comprehensive approach that involves not only law enforcement agencies but also governments, civil society organizations, and communities. Ultimately, addressing police corruption is essential to promoting human rights, enhancing trust in law enforcement agencies, and promoting a more just and equitable society.

People should be made aware of their rights, which are given to them by various statutes. They should be able to exercise their rights in order to prevent anyone including the police officers from infringing their human rights. With the enactment of various legislations recently, now the police can be held accountable for any misconduct. The citizens shall complain to the appropriate authority if any of their rights are being infringed by any police officers. Everyone gets human rights inherently, and no one can take away or infringe anyone’s rights in any circumstances without being proven guilty.

. . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Websites:

Journals:

International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory. National Human Rights Commission Journal

Cases:

Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar (1983) Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996) Prakash Singh v. Union of India and Ors (2006)
Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors (2020)

Discus