The Chhattisgarh High Court expressed serious concern and strong disapproval regarding alleged police misconduct in an incident where petitioners claimed that they had been subjected to custodial torture, handcuffed and publicly paraded, and forced to chant slogans following what was described as a trivial dispute. The petitioners alleged that they were falsely implicated in offences under the relevant criminal law following an altercation at a cinema hall, where they asserted the issue was minor and did not warrant arrest or harsh treatment. According to the petitioners, the police displayed a predetermined bias against them and distorted the facts of the complaint to escalate the matter into serious criminal charges. In addition to claims of physical and mental mistreatment, they also contended that they were denied timely medical examination despite suffering visible injuries. They argued that their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly the rights to life, liberty and dignity under the Constitution, had been violated by the police actions.
The petition was filed as a writ seeking redress for alleged violations of constitutional rights, including compensation and disciplinary action against the police officers responsible for the conduct. The petitioners maintained that they had no criminal antecedents and that the offences for which they were booked were not serious enough to justify the degree of custodial action taken by the police. In contrast, the State authorities denied the allegations of abuse, claiming that all procedural safeguards had been followed in compliance with law and that no custodial torture, illegal detention, or third-degree methods had been employed. The State also argued that the public parading aspect was misconstrued and attributable to a mechanical issue involving a police vehicle that required a ‘push-start,’ necessitating the petitioners to walk for a short distance alongside the vehicle.
After considering the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court, comprising the Chief Justice and another judge, observed that procedural lapses and actions on the part of the police authorities gave rise to serious concern. The Court noted that allegations of unlawful arrest, failure to observe statutory and judicial safeguards, inordinate delay in medical examination, and alleged humiliation of the petitioners were issues striking at the core of the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty and dignity, which form the essence of fundamental rights. The Court stressed that the allegations, if proved, would demonstrate a disregard for the rule of law and the constitutional safeguards established for the protection of individuals against excesses in police action.
Rather than undertaking a detailed adjudication of disputed facts in the writ petition, the High Court chose to dispose of the petition while underscoring the necessity for police authorities to ensure that no citizen is subjected to harassment, humiliation or custodial mistreatment. The Bench emphasized that dignity, liberty and fundamental rights must be respected and safeguarded in every case. It articulated its expectation and earnest exhortation that police authorities entrusted with maintaining law and order should exercise the highest degree of fairness, restraint and diligence in performing their duties, strictly observing constitutional provisions, statutory mandates and binding judicial precedents. The Court’s identification of procedural inadequacies highlighted the need for greater care and adherence to safeguards when dealing with individuals brought into custody, especially where allegations involve trivial or minor public disputes.
In the course of its order, the High Court specifically recorded serious concern and strong disapproval regarding the conduct of the Station House Officer involved in the matter. The Court described the officer’s approach as casual and hasty in the exercise of police powers, indicating a disregard for constitutional safeguards and procedural mandates that govern arrest, detention and treatment of citizens. This observation underscored the Bench’s view that the manner in which police powers had been exercised in this instance was inappropriate and undermined the protective framework set out under the Constitution and judicial directions.
The High Court also directed the Director General of Police of the State to undertake specific actions to address the issues raised by the case and to prevent similar occurrences in future. The Court instructed that all police officers under the DGP’s command, particularly those involved in the instant matter, should be reminded of their constitutional obligations, statutory responsibilities and the binding directions laid down by superior courts in relevant precedent decisions. The directions were aimed at ensuring strict compliance with established standards for arrest, remand and custodial conduct. The High Court further directed that an inquiry be conducted to examine the conduct of the Station House Officer whose actions were found to have revealed a disregard for constitutional safeguards. The inquiry was to include appropriate corrective and disciplinary measures as necessary, along with formal sensitization and counseling for the officer regarding the binding directives of superior courts.
In addition to individual accountability, the High Court instructed the DGP to issue standing instructions reiterating that any deviation from constitutional safeguards relating to arrest, remand or custodial treatment must attract strict departmental consequences. These instructions were intended to reinforce a culture of adherence to constitutional norms and legal procedures among law enforcement personnel across the State. By emphasizing that violations of fundamental rights and procedural mandates would not be tolerated, the High Court sought to promote greater awareness and institutional commitment to upholding the dignity and liberty of every citizen.
The case before the High Court illustrated broader concerns regarding custodial practices and the importance of constitutional safeguards during police action. The Court’s remarks and directives highlighted the need for law enforcement to balance the imperative of maintaining public order with the constitutional duty to protect individual rights. The High Court’s order demonstrated that where allegations of custodial excesses arise, judicial scrutiny and corrective measures play a crucial role in ensuring that accountability mechanisms function effectively. By taking a firm stance against procedural lapses and potential violations of fundamental rights, the Court reaffirmed the principle that custodial mistreatment and humiliation are wholly unacceptable under the constitutional framework. The directives issued to the police leadership were geared toward strengthening compliance with established safeguards and preventing the erosion of citizens’ trust in the justice system due to arbitrary or excessive actions by law enforcement authorities.
The High Court’s disposal of the petition underscored that internal departmental processes and inquiries should be responsive to concerns about police conduct, while also preserving the constitutional rights of individuals who come into contact with the criminal justice system. The emphasis on sensitization, training and strict consequences for departures from established norms aimed to foster a more rights-compliant approach to policing. The Court’s intervention served to remind policing authorities that constitutional guarantees of dignity, liberty and personal security are fundamental to the rule of law, and that any departure from these safeguards must be addressed with appropriate institutional and disciplinary responses.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.