Why in News: Chhattisgarh High Court reduced police conviction in a custodial death case from murder to culpable homicide, observing that officers acted to “teach a lesson” to the victim, a Dalit man.
Context of the Judgment
- In a recent custodial death case from Chhattisgarh, the High Court reduced the conviction of four police officers from murder to culpable homicide.
- The victim, a Dalit man, was arrested for alleged public misbehaviour.
- The High Court observed that the officers acted with the intent to “teach a lesson” to the victim.
Problematic Nature of the Observation
- No constitutional basis – “Teaching a lesson” is not a principle of justice; it resembles vigilante logic.
- Risk of legitimisation – normalises custodial torture as discipline rather than treating it as a crime.
- Erodes judicial integrity – judiciary’s role is to check state excess, not justify it.
- Role confusion – police become judge, jury, and executioner if such logic is tolerated.
- Dangerous precedent – emboldens officers to repeat such acts, believing courts will sympathise.
Custodial Violence and the Caste Dimension
- Disproportionate victims – Dalits, Adivasis, and poor form the majority of custodial deaths.
- Caste-coded enforcement – Dalit victim beaten by upper-caste police is not incidental, but reflective of power hierarchies.
- Judicial narrowness – SC/ST Act requires explicit caste intent proof, ignoring structural caste realities.
- Denial of justice – most cases under the Act collapse due to absence of direct caste slurs.
- Structural violence – systemic bias makes vulnerable groups more exposed to torture, less likely to get legal redress.
Judicial Precedents on Custodial Safeguards
1. D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal – laid down arrest & detention safeguards.
2. Ashok K. Johri vs State of U.P. – emphasised restraint in use of force.
3. Munshi Singh Gautam vs State of M.P. – stressed transparency in custodial investigations.
4. Supreme Court concern – repeated directions highlight endemic problem of torture.
5. Gap in implementation – despite precedents, compliance is sporadic; institutional accountability remains weak.
Why Judicial Language Matters
- Language shapes law – terms like “teaching a lesson” influence how lower courts and police interpret conduct.
- Creates moral shelter – conveys that custodial violence is regrettable but understandable.
- Blurs constitutional boundaries – between legitimate discipline and illegal coercion.
- Weakens deterrence – police may believe excessive zeal will be condoned.
- Undermines constitutional morality – dignity and due process are compromised when courts normalise brutality.
The Way Forward
- Reinforce constitutional values – uphold proportionality, dignity, due process in judgments.
- independent bodies (NHRC, State HRCs, judicial oversight) must probe custodial deaths.
- Robust application of SC/ST Act – recognise structural caste power as evidence, not just explicit caste slurs.
- Enforce safeguards – ensure mandatory compliance with D.K. Basu guidelines; strict penalties for violations.
- Judicial responsibility – avoid legitimising extra-legal instincts; affirm that custodial violence is criminal, never disciplinary.
Conclusion
Justice is about accountability under law, not coercive punishment. Courts must avoid language that rationalises brutality; instead, reinforce constitutional morality.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper II – Governance, Polity, Constitution, Rights Issues
- Judiciary & Constitutional Morality
- Custodial Violence in India
Mains Practice Question
Q. “Teaching a lesson” is not a constitutional principle of justice but a legitimisation of state violence. In the context of custodial deaths and caste-based discrimination, critically examine the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional morality and protecting vulnerable sections.