The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has issued contempt notices to eleven police officers, including the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer and the Station House Officer of Basohli Police Station in Kathua, following allegations of illegal arrest and brutal custody torture inflicted upon two laborers from Punjab. The court took this step after being apprised of a petition that highlighted grave deviations from Supreme Court guidelines designed to prevent arbitrary detention and custodial abuses.
According to the petition filed by the victims—identified as residents of Pathankot, Punjab—the two men were picked up in the early hours of June 30 without proper legal authority or documentation. They had been working under contract near Ranjit Sagar Dam, where such activity is prohibited during the monsoon season. Claimed to have been detained at 12:30 am, the petitioners stated that no memo of arrest was issued, they were not informed of the grounds of arrest, and the mandatory arrest checklist was not produced before a magistrate—all blatant breaches of procedure mandated by Supreme Court rulings.
The petition alleges that, once unlawfully detained, the men were subjected to extended torture both at the site of arrest and in police custody. Medical reports from district hospitals, first in Kathua and then back in Pathankot, documented serious physical injuries—broken toes, bite marks, bruises, and forcibly torn fingernails—all of which corroborated the allegations of ill-treatment.
The court, presided over by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, considered the petition to be in contempt of the binding rulings in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. Both Supreme Court decisions lay down procedural inoculations that must be followed during arrests, and the petitioners have alleged that the protocols were flagrantly violated in this case.
In response, the High Court took the unusual step of issuing contempt notices against all eleven police personnel named in the petition, making it clear that allegations of custodial torture and procedural lapses cannot be taken lightly. The court demanded the officers to respond by the next hearing, as proceedings were officially listed for September 3, 2025.
This action underscores the court’s commitment to upholding constitutional protections and signals that systematic abuse of authority, especially through torture, will not go unchallenged. By invoking contempt powers instead of merely initiating a fresh inquiry, the court emphasized that procedural safeguards in cases of arrest are not optional—they are mandatory.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.