The Gauhati High Court has directed the state government to take appropriate decisions for compensating those arson accused whose homes were demolished by Assam Police in May 2022.

On November 20, the Gauhati High Court had reprimanded the Assam Superintendent of Police for bulldozing the homes of five arson accused “under the guise of investigation”. The court took suo moto cognizance [In Re State of Assam and others, PIL (Suo Moto)/3/2022] of the matter, where the home of 5 men accused of setting fire to Batadrava Police Station in Nagaon district were demolished. The bench led by Chief Justice RM Chhaya and comprising Justice Soumitra Saikia questioned how the police demolished the house without permission.

On the hearing held on January 3, the matter was brought to a close by the bench while observing that the government is seized of the matter. Advocate General D Saikia assured the court that a Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State of Assam is enquiring into the incidence of bulldozing of the house and appropriate action shall be taken even against the erring officers within a period of 15(fifteen) days.

The court said, “it is expected that the State shall also take appropriate decisions for compensating the persons affected by the illegal action of the officer. Report of the same shall be produced before this Court in this proceeding.” Further the court closed the proceedings with liberty to revive the same merely by filing a note.

Background

During the November hearing, When the State’s counsel submitted that the police had permission from the District magistrate to search the house, the bench pointed out that the permission was to search and not to “bulldoze”.

The Chief Justice said, “He may be SP of any district, even your IG, DIG, whoever may be, the IAS authority, the DG, he has to pass through the gamut of law. Only because they head the police department, they can’t break anybody’s house. Nobody is safe in this country then, if this is permitted. We are not that. Procedure has to be followed”. He continued, “In my limited career here and at the Bar, I have not come across any police officer using a bulldozer by way of a search warrant.”

The reason for the alleged arson was the arbitrary arrest of a Muslim fish seller. A fish-seller Safiqul Islam was on his way to Sivasagar district on the night of May 20, 2022, when the Batadrava police stopped him and allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹ 10,000 and a duck from him. They made the same demand from his wife and allegedly assaulted him in front of her. She rushed to arrange for the money but was informed later that Islam was admitted to the district civil hospital, where he was found to be dead. Accusing the police of custodial murder, the family took his body to the police station and started protesting. Viral videos show the family eventually setting the place on fire in which 2 policemen were injured. Within days, 21 people were arrested for arson and yet the district administration launched an eviction drive against encroachers in Salnabori village – where the same people live who allegedly set the police station on fire.

The high court’s order may be read here:

Related:

Assam: Police station burnt down after fish-seller’s alleged custodial death, bulldozers flatten attacker’s homes
“Bulldozer Injustice”: Time for courts to actively step in
Bulldozer injustice: this will only stop when a police officer is sent to jail, says Patna HC
Allegations of selective demolitions are false, Due process of law followed: UP gov’t to SC
Repair, compensate, prosecute: Parveen Fatima in petition before Allahabad HC
BJP’s Bulldozer is Breaking the Law: Subhashini Ali former MP, Kanpur

The post Gauhati HC directs compensation for alleged arson accused whose homes in Batadrava were bulldozed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 “The threat to human rights and bodily integrity are the highest in police stations. Custodial torture and other police atrocities are problems which still prevail in our society. Inspite of constitutional declarations and guarantees, lack of effective legal representation at the police stations is a huge detriment to the arrested and detained persons,” said Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana at an event organised by the National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA).

He referred to some reports to highlight the deplorable state in the country, and said that even the privileged sections are not spared third degree treatment in police stations. He added that the dissemination of information about the constitutional right to legal aid is significant in keeping police excesses in check.

“The installation of display boards and outdoor hoardings in every police station is a step in this direction”, he remarked. However, CJI Ramana said that NALSA must also actively carry out nationwide sensitisation of police officers, as issues of human rights and dignity are sacrosanct.

The event that took place on August 8, was organised by NALSA to release its vision and mission statement along with the legal services’ mobile application. Besides CJI Ramana, Supreme Court judge, Justice UU Lalit, the Executive Chairman of the NALSA was also present.

Further, the CJI also highlighted the importance of legal aid that had its roots in the freedom movement when legal luminaries rendered pro-bono services to freedom fighters, who were targeted by the colonial rulers. He said for a society to be governed by the rule of law, “it is imperative for us to bridge the gap of accessibility to justice between the highly privileged and the most vulnerable…We must remember that the realities of socio-economic diversity which prevail in our nation, cannot ever be a reason for denial of rights.”

Towards the end of the speech, he urged all lawyers, especially seniors, to dedicate some percentage of their working hours to help those in need. “No institution, how big or noble, can be successful, unless it is ably aided by all the stakeholders to turn it into a public movement,” he concluded.

During the ongoing monsoon session, the Centre has informed the Parliament that between 2020 to 2021, as many as 1,840 deaths in judicial custody have been recorded across all states and Union Territories, and 100 deaths have been recorded in police custody, reported SabrangIndia. The state with the highest tally of judicial custody deaths is Uttar Pradesh (443), followed by West Bengal (177), Bihar (156) and Madhya Pradesh (155). Gujarat has reported the highest number of police custodial deaths between 2020 and 2021 at 17, followed by Maharashtra (13) and Madhya Pradesh (8).

Furthermore, the number of judicial custodial deaths have been increasing over the years as 1,797 cases were recorded between 2018 and 2019, and 1,584 cases were reported between 2019 and 2020. 

The speech delivered by CJI NV Ramana may be viewed here:

Related:

1840 deaths in judicial custody, 100 in police custody between 2020-21: Centre
Why has India still not ratified UN Convention against torture?
Gujarat reported highest number of police custodial deaths: Centre in LS
Has torture in police custody become routine?

The post Threat to human rights and bodily integrity highest in police stations: CJI NV Ramana appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Allahabad High Court has held that publication of the names/photographs of alleged criminals / accused persons other than “proclaimed offenders” and “fugitives” in law, on notice boards of police stations is a violation of the right to privacy and human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Following this ratio, Justices Vivek Agarwal and Pankaj Naqvi directed the Director General of Police (DGP) of Uttar Pradesh to remove the names/identities of top-10 criminals along with their criminal antecedents from the flysheet board from all the police stations. The Bench however clarified that the benefit of this verdict will not be given to any “proclaimed offenders and fugitives in law”.

The petitioners who are also siblings contended that they are relatives of a former member of the Parliament from Allahabad Constituency and due to political vendetta, they are being harassed by the police authorities by illegally publishing their names in the list of top-10 criminals of Police Station-Khuldabad.

They submitted that only one case was registered against each of them and it was on the basis of one case that their names were included under top 10 criminals. They argued in court that the three of them have suffered a violation of fundamental rights, and their names are being scandalised and propagated without following procedure established by law.  

A circular/policy issued by the Uttar Pradesh government on July 6, 2020 was also assailed on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution because paragraph 2 of the policy provides for preparation of a list of “top 10 criminals” at each police station and district so as to help the police in keeping a tab on active, hardened and functional criminals.

Thereafter, the court framed three issues for consideration:

(i) Whether policy/circular is ultra vires of the provisions contained in Constitution of India especially Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, Police Act, 1861 or UP Police Regulations?

(ii) Whether the policy/circular grants the right to the police authorities to publish names of so-called criminals/accused persons on the flysheet board of the concerned police station?

(iii) Whether the publication of names of such accused persons violates the right to privacy and dignity?

The judges gave separate but concurring opinions on the issues. On the first issue, the court relied on Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Vs. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515, to hold that the validity of any subordinate legislation can be challenged on the grounds of unreasonableness, vagueness or arbitrariness. It ruled that the policy per se does not suffer from the vice of ultra vires, because the aim and object of the policy is to keep the police updated of the activities of the criminals with a view to keep a better control on law-and-order situations.

“I have no hesitation to hold that policy/ circular in its content or language does not suffer from lack of competence. When tested within the four corners of the law laid down in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (supra), policy cannot be said to be the arbitrary, illegal or ultra vires of either the Constitution or the Police Act or the Police Regulations”, was held by the Bench.

On the second issue, whether the policy grants the Police the right to publish names, the court said that there is no provision in the circular nor any of the provisions contained in the police regulations, the Police Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), to publish list of identified top 10 criminals and mafia elements either on the flysheet board of the concerned police station or anywhere else.

On the third question of dignity and privacy, Justice Vivek Agarwal said that: “The sanctity of privacy lies in its functional relationship with dignity. This judgment (KS Puttaswamy) lays down that privacy of an individual is an essential aspect of dignity. Privacy represents the core of the human personality, which is part of a broader concept of liberty. Dignity is an entitlement of a constitutionally protected interest in itself. Dignity and freedom are intertwined and facilitate each other.”

He added: “it is apparent that neither socially nor politically it is desirable to curtail human dignity, which is infringed when names of accused persons are displayed on the flysheet board of the police station concerned or anywhere else without there being any proclamation issued against them under Section 82 Cr.PC. Thus, this practice of putting the names on the flysheet board is derogatory to the concept of human dignity and privacy and therefore Reference Question No. iii is answered in affirmative that publication of names of accused persons violates their right to privacy and dignity.”

Justice Pankaj Naqvi penned down his own opinion (concurring) on this issue. He referred to the teachings of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Immanuel Kant, French Philosopher Charles Renouvier and international law to emphasise on the idea of dignity. “A welfare State is governed by rule of law. The approach of the Apex Court in respecting and upholding the dignity of an individual, whether he be an accused or a convict, is both pragmatic and sensitive”, he noted.

He observed that, “Sensitization is an important aspect of policing as the Police being in the forefront to maintain law and order are expected to strictly uphold the rule of law. A police force sans sensitivity could play havoc with the life and liberty of an individual including his/her dignity. Dignity is neither class centric nor an elitist concept. It is inherent in all individuals as human beings. Article 21 encompasses all shades of dignity as a necessary concomitant of liberty.”

Justice Naqvi finally said that the circular of DG (Police) dated July 6, last year cannot be faulted, “but the action of its officers in disclosing the identity of petitioners in police stations in public gaze is absolutely unwarranted and uncalled for as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The judgment may be read here:

Related:

Notice publication of marriage under Special Marriage Act violates privacy: Allahabad HC

The post Publishing accused’s name on police station flyboards, violates privacy: Allahabad HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.