Justice is Not About Teaching a Lesson

Why in the News?

• The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a recent custodial death case, observed that police officers assaulted a man in custody, intending “to teach him a lesson.”
• The victim, a Dalit man, was arrested for alleged public misbehaviour, found medically fit, but died in custody hours later.
• Post-mortem revealed 26 injuries.
• While the trial court convicted four policemen of murder, the High Court reduced the offence to culpable homicide, citing a lack of intent but knowledge of likely death.
  

Background

• Custodial violence in India has been a recurring human rights issue.
• Supreme Court judgments (e.g., D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal; Munshi Singh Gautam vs State of M.P.) have laid down safeguards on arrest, detention, and interrogation.
• Despite guidelines, custodial torture and deaths continue, often affecting Dalits, Adivasis, and marginalised groups.
• The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted to protect Dalits and Adivasis from caste-based violence, but courts frequently demand explicit proof of caste motive, undermining its intent.
• National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data regularly records custodial deaths, but accountability remains weak due to poor investigations and institutional complicity.

Feature

Problematic Judicial Reasoning

• The HC’s remark of “teaching a lesson” reflects institutional tolerance of police brutality.
• Such language normalises violence as a form of deterrence rather than recognising it as a constitutional violation.

Caste-Coded Enforcement

• The victim was a Dalit man, yet the courts acquitted the accused under the SC/ST Act.
• The judiciary’s insistence on explicit caste slurs or declarations overlooks the structural caste hierarchy enabling violence.

Impact on the Rule of Law

• Police brutality reframed as discipline undermines proportionality and due process.
• Courts’ conceptual framing legitimises extra-legal behaviour by state actors.

Systemic Failure

• Investigations are often handled by implicated institutions (the police themselves).
• Weak enforcement of Supreme Court safeguards.
• Absence of independent accountability mechanisms sustains the culture of impunity.

Challenge

• Institutional Mindset: Judicial remarks risk reinforcing authoritarian tendencies within law enforcement.
• Weak SC/ST Act Application: Narrow interpretation limits justice for caste-violence victims.
• Impunity of State Actors: Police rarely face strict punishment; conviction rates remain low.
• Procedural Safeguards on Paper Only: Lack of effective enforcement of D.K. Basu guidelines.
• Language and Policy Link: Court language shapes legal reasoning; problematic phrases like “teaching a lesson” can legitimise future custodial violence.
  

Way Forward

Judicial Responsibility

• Courts must explicitly affirm that custodial violence is criminal, not corrective.
• Judicial language should avoid legitimising extralegal punishments.

Strengthening SC/ST Act Enforcement

1. Recognise structural caste-based power as sufficient ground for invoking the Act.
2. Shift focus from requiring explicit caste slurs to acknowledging systemic oppression.

Independent Accountability Mechanisms

• Establish independent custodial death investigation bodies outside police control.
• Mandate video recording of interrogation and CCTV monitoring in lock-ups.

Police Reform & Training

• Sensitisation on constitutional values, human rights, and caste discrimination.
• Strict departmental penalties for violation of custodial safeguards.

Cultural Shift in Justice Delivery

• Replace the vigilante logic of “lesson teaching” with the constitutional ethos of dignity, proportionality, and due process.
• Reinforce that deterrence must come from lawful conviction, not coercion.

Conclusion

The judiciary’s role is not just to punish wrongdoers but also to shape the moral and constitutional framework within which justice operates. By rationalising custodial brutality under the guise of deterrence, courts risk eroding faith in the rule of law. Upholding dignity, equality, and due process requires rejecting the authoritarian impulse of “teaching lessons” and affirming that violence in custody is never disciplinary-it is criminal.

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

Question: Justice is not about ‘teaching someone a lesson.’ In light of the recent Chhattisgarh High Court judgment on custodial death, discuss the challenges of custodial violence in India and examine the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional principles of dignity, equality, and due process.

PRELIMS PRACTICE QUESTION