In a significant recent decision (Vihaan Kumar vs The State of Haryana) the Supreme Court of India ruled that the failure of a law enforcement official to give the grounds of arrest to a person detained by him is violative of the Constitution and, therefore, illegal. The Court specifically referred to Article 22(1) of the Constitution which reads: “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
The Court went on to add that under such circumstances the arrestee was entitled to be released on bail, even if there were any statutory restrictions on giving bail in a particular case.
The Court’s objective here was evidently to reduce the arbitrariness and caprice of investigating officials.
To eliminate any suppression of crucial material by the officer concerned with regard to the detention it has been laid down as a practice that Magistrates should question the offender produced before them whether he or she had been apprised of relevant facts. If any failure of the investigating officer to do so is detected the Magistrate should record this fact and bring it to the notice of supervisory officials for such disciplinary action as deemed fit.
Several other rules
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (previously known as the Criminal Procedure Code enacted under the British) lays down several other rules for compliance by the officers effecting an arrest, all in the interest of protecting human rights. These include conveying information of an arrest to a friend or relative named by the arrestee, as also providing legal assistance to him or her through the nearest available advocate.
The most important legal requirement here is of course the production of the arrested person before the nearest Magistrate before the end of 24 hours from the time of arrest. It is widely known that many agencies dodge this rule by not bringing on record the fact of an arrest, sometimes for a dishonest purpose, and many a time for giving themselves enough time to ferret out more information related to an incident under probe.
This is a definite violation of human rights that is highly condemnable. But then there is the questionable defence of this practice by some well meaning public officials that law enforcement officers are forced to resort to off-the-record detentions because many offenders are far too clever in suppressing their misdeeds and need to be interrogated at length.
Police stations in particular contribute to this unsatisfactory state of affairs. We now have nearly 17,000 police stations in the country.
In earlier times, supervisory officials used to be directed to visit police stations by surprise and physically check whether there were any suspects kept there off the record. This was a salutary practice. I hope it continues and acts as a deterrent to malpractices.
Rigorous training of officers in lower rungs of a law enforcement agency is the need of the hour. This should be both at the time of recruitment and later while in service. Unlike earlier times training now receives considerable attention in the police and other law enforcement organisations. Training resources are now enormous.
The efficacy of training however remains doubtful. It is moot whether the latest Supreme Court decision will ever be brought to the knowledge of officials at the cutting edge level. Nothing but daily indoctrination will ever work.
Fear of stringent disciplinary action for violation of law and the code of conduct comes only later.
The writer is a former CBI Director
Rigorous training of officers in lower rungs of a law enforcement agency is the need of the hour
bl12-think-rk
bl12-think-dc-rk