Police Brutality and Extrajudicial Killings in India

POLICE BRUTALITY AND EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS IN INDIA

Submitted by:
Divya Raunak, B.A. L.L.B (Hons)
Roll no. 2119
Submitted to:
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed
Faculty of sociology of law.
This final draft is submitted in the complete fulfilment of the topic “POLICE
BRUTALITY AND EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS IN INDIA”
Chanakya National Law University, Patna
1
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my faculty Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, whose assignment of such a pertinent topic
made me work towards knowing the subject with a greater interest and enthusiasm and moreover
he guided me throughout the project.
I owe the present accomplishments of my project to my friends, who helped me immensely with
sources of research materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have
completed it in the present way.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that helped me
out at every stage of my project.
THANK YOU!
NAME-DIVYA RAUNAK
ROLL NO.- 2119
2nd Semester (BA LL. B)
2
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A. LLB (Hons.) project report entitled “Police
Brutality” submitted at Chanakya National Law University Patna, is an authentic record
of my work carried under the supervision of Mr. Shakeel Ahmed. I have not submitted this
work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my
project report.
DIVYA RAUNAK
Chanakya National Law University
19/02/2020
3
Table of Contents
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................2
2. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................5
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................7
4. CASES OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN INDIA.......................................................................9
5. POLICE VIOLENCE, USE OF FORCE POLICIES, AND PUBLIC HEALTH..................13
6. POLICE VIOLENCE DUE TO CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT................................20
7. EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS.............................................................................................27
8. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................31
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................32
4
1. INTRODUCTION
Police brutality or police violence is legally defined as a civil rights violation wherein officers
exercise undue or excessive force against a civilian. This includes, but is not limited to, physical
or verbal harassment, physical or mental injury, property damage, and death. In some countries,
"color of law" protects officers from ambiguous situations1.
Police brutality is defined as the use of excessive physical assault or verbal assault during police
procedures, such as apprehending or interrogating a suspect. Deadly force is not always
excessive force. However, when deadly force exceeds the force that is necessary to create a safe
environment, it is considered police brutality.
Radicalized police violence1 is a recurring issue. Recent social movements have re-centered
police violence as a subject of public discourse, yet there has been little progress in reducing the
number of people killed by police. Without further efforts in research and legal reform, this
everyday crisis will continue. Thus, material interventions designed to fundamentally shift police
practices away from deadly engagements are greatly needed2.
These interventions have the potential to disrupt current policing practices that continue to
determine which lives are valued—physically and discursively—and which can be lost to
incessant police violence. While many strategies for addressing police violence have been
proposed, existing discussions do not fully engage a primary factor in police violence and major
barrier to accountability: use of force policies. These are the policies that codify the rules that
govern the levels and types of force that police are permitted to use against citizens, including
deadly force. These rules are important because they are not only used to train police and guide
their engagements with the community, but are also used as benchmarks when evaluating
whether their use of force is excessive.
1
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_India
2
/www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/asia/india-protests-police-muslims
5
This Article examines use of force policies that often precipitate and absolve police violence as
not only a legal or moral issue, but distinctively as a public health issue with widespread health
impacts for individuals and communities. This public health framing can disrupt the sterile legal
and policy discourse of police violence in relation to communities of color (where conversations
often focus on limited queries such as reasonableness) by drawing attention to the health impacts
of state-sanctioned police violence3. This approach allows us to shift the focus from the
individual actions of police and citizens to a more holistic assessment of how certain policy
preferences put police in the position to not treat certain civilians’ lives as carefully as they
should. In sum, we seek to develop an empirical understanding of the substance of existing use
of force policies and discuss how these policies relate to police violence in general and public
health in particular. Not unlike seat belt laws or mandatory vaccinations, we see use of force
policy reform as a site where a public health law sensibility can create the conditions for
increasing survivability and decreasing adverse health outcomes by minimizing the likelihood of
police force use and its severity. Accordingly, our research questions are aimed at understanding
how use of force policies, police violence, and public health intersect. We pursue this by
conducting a content analysis of use of force polices from the twenty largest U.S. cities by
population. Unlike previous use of force analyses, this qualitative assessment takes a “deep” look
at the language used to confer and restrain police power, which provides a basis from which to
think through the link between textual articulation, police practice, and community health
outcomes. This content analysis is then put in conversation with existing literature to explore and
hypothesize this link and opportunities for disruption in the name of improving health outcomes.
3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_India
6
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1. Objective of the study

i. The researcher wants to explore the menace of police brutality and extra
judicial killing.
ii. The researcher wants to discuss some of the cases related to the topic that will
help the reader understanding the topic.
2. Hypothesis :
The researcher has the following hypothesis:
Whether the current police authority need some radical changes in the ways
they deal with common masses.
3. Research Methodology :
The researcher will do doctrinal type of research in which he will go through the primary as well
secondary sources. The researcher through this methodology will be able to get an exact picture
of the problem in question. The doctrinal method helps in doing a comparative study of the topic.
This methodology helps in going through not only the work of one eminent person but of many
other too. This helps in getting the bird’s eye view of the subject.
To satisfy the need of the project, the researcher will go through section by section and clause by
clause of each section in question. Then, the researcher will cross check the commentary of those
provisions. This methodology will be the most effective way in preparing the project.
7
The researcher will also elaborate the topic with the help of cases . Tabular
representation of recent judgments will also be represented so that the rationale
behind the concept of POLICE BRUTALITY will be cleared.
4. Limitation of the study :

Since the researcher is a student of law, he has access to a limited area. The
researcher having read the commentary on the IPC could understand the problem
clearly but it would have been clearer if he would have read commentary of more
writers. The researcher has limited time for the project. The historical need and
background is also necessary for having a bird’s eye view of the particular topic and
it gets developed only by effective and extended reading over a long period of time.
The researcher has a restricted access to the reports of the law commission where the
reasons of their work I not available. But still researcher with his hard work will
manage to take out the best possible work.
5. Scope of the study.
After giving the introduction and hypothesis the researcher will do doctrinal as well
as non-doctrinal research to substantiate the hypothesis of the study. With the help of
case laws, the institution of child rights will be discussed.
8
3. CASES OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN INDIA
British India
 13 April 1919 – The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre,
took place where police killed at least 400 and injured over 1,5004.
On 10th April 1919, two nationalist leaders- Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr Satya Pal were arrested in
Punjab under the infamous Rowlatt Act. On 13th April 1919, people gathered in a small park in
Amritsar which was called the Jalllianwala Bagh, to protest against these arrests. The peaceful gathering
was attended by men, women and children. General Dyer, a British military officer, stationed a regiment
of soldiers at the only entrance of the park, declared the meeting illegal and without warning ordered his
soldiers to fire. The firing lasted for ten minutes, till all the ammunition was exhausted. More than a
thousand people were killed and over twice that number wounded. The massacre was worth calling
genocide and it stunned the entire country. On 30th May 1919, Rabindranath Tagore renounced his
knighthood. Gandhi returned the Kaiser-i-Hind Gold medal given to him for his work during Boer War.
 12 December 1930 – Bombay cotton mill worker Babu Genu Said was crushed by a truck

at the order of police. He was an active participant in the protests, organized by Indian
independence activists against the import of foreign made cloth. His death resulted in a huge
wave of anger, strikes, and protests throughout Bombay.
Post-Independence5
 25 March 1966 – Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo, first Oriya ruler and 20th Maharaja of Bastar
state, was killed in police firing at the steps of his own palace at Jagdalpur along with many
others
4
economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/List-of-cases-of-police-brutality-in-India
5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_India
9
 1979 – Police fired on Bengali refugees occupying Marichjhanpi island near Hasnabad, West
Bengal. Dead bodies were allegedly thrown to the rivers to hide death count and many others
dies by drowning while trying to flee. Official count says 2 people died in this incident but
various reports suggest otherwise.
 1979 to 1980 – The Bhagalpur blinding was an incident in Bhagalpur in the state of Bihar,
India when police blinded 31 under trials (or convicted criminals, according to some
versions), by pouring acid into their eyes.
 11 January 1982 – The first encounter of Bombay Police was completed. A Gangster who
scored 78% from Kiriti College, Bombay, Manya Surve was killed without giving him a
proper chance to defend himself or surrender. Police fired 5 bullets into his chest and
shoulder due to which he succumbed on the spot. The movie, Shootout at Wadala, is based
on this case.
 22 May 1987 – The Hashimpura massacre took place during the Hindu-Muslim
riots in Meerut city in Uttar Pradesh state, India, when 19 personnel of the Provincial Armed
Constabulary (PAC) allegedly rounded up 42 Muslim youths from the
Hashimpuran mohalla (locality) of the city, took them in truck to the outskirts, near Murad
Nagar, in Ghaziabad district, where they were shot and their bodies were dumped in water
canals. A few days later dead bodies were found floating in the canals.
 1–2 October 1994 – The Rampur Tiraha firing involved police firing on unarmed
Uttarakhand activists at Rampur Tiraha (crossing) in Muzaffarnagar district in Uttar
Pradesh in India on the night of 1–2 October 1994. The activists, part of the agitation for the
separate state of Uttarakhand, were going to Delhi to stage a dharna at Raj Ghat on Gandhi
Jayanti, the following day, when alleged unprovoked police firing in the night of 1 October
led to the death of six activists, and some women were allegedly raped and molested in the
ensuing melee.
 25 November 1994 – The Koothuparamba firing was a police action in the Kannur district
of Kerala. The firing happened after the inauguration of the Co-operative Urban Bank's
evening branch, when the DYFI protested against Communist Marxist Party (CMP) leader
and Kerala's Minister, M.V. Raghavan. The police fired at the crowd for both the protection
of the Minister and public and private property. Five DYFI activists were dead and six people
were injured.
10
 1999 – The Manjolai Labourers massacre was brutal police action on a procession taken out
in support of agitating tea estate workers, claimed 17 lives in Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu.
 2003 – The Muthanga incident was a brutal police action on Adivasis who had gathered
under Adivasi Gothra Mahasabha (ADMS) in protest to the Kerala Government's delay in
allotting them land, which had been contracted in October 2001. Two fatalities were
officially confirmed, however the government later put the death toll at 5. More than 15
Adivasis fatally wounded.
 2006 – Police opened fire on people protesting against land acquisition for SEZ of Videocon
at Maan village in Pune.
 2007 – Police opened fire on people protesting against land acquisition for Chemical Hub of
Salim Group at Nandigram village in East Midnapore, West Bengal.
 2009 – Police opened fire on Muslims at the fishing village Beemapally in Trivandrum
District, Kerala during a communal clash killing 6 and injuring 46 people.
 23 July 2009 – at Khwairamband market, Imphal, Manipur police commandos killed an
unarmed youth Ch Sanjit Meitei in an alleged encounter and later claiming to seize a pistol
on him; in the ensuing encounter a pregnant lady Rabina Devi was also killed, whom the
police claimed was shot during the crossfire.
 2011 – The police opened fire on protesters protesting against the Jaitapur Nuclear Power
Plant and killed one of the protesters.
 3 June 2011 – The Forbesganj firing was an act of state brutality in which four villagers
were killed near Forbesganj, a town in Bihar, India. An inquiry into the incident, conducted
by reputed NGO ANHAD, suggests a role of politicians from the Bharatiya Janata Party in
the killings. The residents of the village of Bhajanpur were protesting the grant of land to a
factory owned by the son of Bharatiya Janata Party politician Ashok Agarwal.
 2013 – The Dhule Shootout was an incident in which police open fired on violent Muslim
youths killing 6 and injuring around 20. Police were also involved in looting local shops.
 25 August 2015 – The Patidar community organised an assembly of over 500,000 people at
the GMDC Ground in Ahmedabad demanding OBC quota. The convener Hardik Patel led
others remaining there on hunger strike after the formal rally was over. Police arrested him in
the evening, using a lathicharge during which journalists were among those injured.
11
 13 October 2015 – Punjab police shot two protestors and injured 50 others at a protest
in Kotkapura, Punjab, following the Guru Granth Sahib desecration in different parts of
Punjab. Police claimed to be acting in self-defence.
 2015 – The Andhra shootout was an incident in the Seshachalam forest in Chittoor
District, Andhra Pradesh that killed 20 suspected woodcutters.
 2018 – The Thoothukudi Massacre[14] was an incident in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu where 13
unarmed protestors were killed and 100+ injured by the Tamil Nadu Police.
 2019 –The 2019 Jamia Milia Islamia attack, during the Citizenship Amendment Act
protests, police attacked student protesters as well as non-protesting students at the campus
of Jamia Milia Islamia.
Hundreds of Indians have protested against police brutality in the capital as unrest continues
over a controversial citizenship law. Demonstrators wore bandages to symbolize injuries
inflicted by police on several student protesters. At least 27 people have been killed in the
unrest, and around a thousand arrested6.
6
omct.org/press-releases/statements/india/2020/01/d25670/
12
4. POLICE VIOLENCE, USE OF FORCE POLICIES, AND PUBLIC

HEALTH
A. POLICE VIOLENCE AND USE OF FORCE POLICIES7
“Police Use of Force Project” consists of reviewing the use of force policies of the largest urban
police departments across the country to determine what rules police must abide by and whether
these policies prevent police violence. The authors empirically evaluate how many of the
departments incorporate eight particular policies on use of force. The eight policies include rules
that establish force continuums and require officers to intervene and prevent other officers from
using excessive force. With data tracking how often these eight approaches appear in department
policies, the researchers examine the connection between how restrictive department policies are
(i.e. how many of the eight policies are in place) and the likelihood that officers in those
departments kill civilians. They found that each additional restriction was associated with a 15%
reduction in killings and that an average department (that had already incorporated three
policies) would see a 54% reduction in killings if they implemented all eight policies.19 Their
findings ultimately suggest that a department with all eight would kill 72% fewer people than
one with zero.
This projects show that many use of force policies are lacking in specificity and rigor, which
provides an entry point to continue this timely discussion of force policies by approaching their
content specifically through a public health framework. Our project seeks to expand upon this
discussion by producing more data through an in-depth content analysis and then using this data
to deepen our understanding of how these policies engender violence and thereby harm health.
Ultimately, we intend to put use of force policies and police violence in conversation with public
health literature in order to grasp how these policies connect with negative health outcomes, in
terms of physical, social, emotional, and psychological impacts. In addition to these projects,
7
law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Paper-Obasogie
13
reform conversations from inside and outside the federal government have similarly focused on
police use of force policies. First, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation and
recommendations regarding the Police Department provided some important suggestions on use
of force policies, including a reorientation toward de-escalation; using the least force necessary
(avoiding unnecessary uses of force); increasing training; improving the depth of reporting and
review; and identifying racial and other disparities in force usage.29 Second, the President’s
Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended “clear and comprehensive policies on use of
force,” including an emphasis on the “importance of de-escalation”; a stated “sanctity of life”
philosophy; ongoing training (such as on shoot/don’t shoot scenarios); and data collection.
B. POLICE VIOLENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
While there is important literature speaking to the relationship between public health and
police violence broadly, much more work in this area is needed. The existing literature
provides a helpful starting point in thinking about police violence as a public health problem.
Yet, critical gaps remain. We aim to contribute to this conversation by pushing the discussion
to encompass what we consider to be a fundamental cause of police violence: use of force
policies. There is a broad range of empirical arguments made that support the conclusion that
police violence connects to public health. Existing literature has argued that the physical and
mental impacts of police violence should lead us to regard it as a public health issue.
In sum, the existing public health discussion regarding police violence has yet to specifically
engage with use of force policies. By examining use of force policies as a point of
intervention and reform that can disrupt normalized police violence and improve health
outcomes, our research contributes to the existing literature through developing a discussion
that emphasizes use of force policies as an important factor in understanding police violence
and public health. Hence, while the legal literature links use of force polices to police
violence and public health literature links police violence to detrimental health impacts, we
seek to extend and connect these arguments by embracing an empirically informed public
health law approach that highlights use of force policies as a particular site where legal
mandates to minimize force use and severity can improve public health outcomes.
14
Essentials of police policies.
i. The Bare Minimum: Reasonableness and Basic Protections.
Not surprisingly, each policy (100%) relied on the “objectively reasonable” standard. Policies
might generally refer to this standard or specifically cite it. In all circumstances, any application
or use of force must be reasonable under the circumstances 8. The use of reasonable force, when
warranted, is permitted by law and is an affirmative duty and responsibility of police officers.
While the fact that all of the policies cite to this standard is not unexpected, issues arise when the
policy’s content does not go beyond reciting the basic standard in describing the quality and
quantity of force. Some policies did not go far beyond regurgitating the Graham standard and
leaving their force policy at that, which provides little to no actual guidance for officers in
determining how and when to use force. Other policies included specific discussions aimed at
articulating meaningful strategies. In addition to discussing the bare minimum standard, it is
common for policies to discuss force levels (85%) and resistance levels (80%), which are two
fairly basic elements to include in a force policy. These policies are basic in the sense that it is
unsurprising that they articulate the levels of force an officer is able to use or the levels officers'
actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them,
without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. Another example of how policies refer to
this standard is the Department’s policy, which includes a discussion of what “objectively
reasonable” means: “Objectively reasonable force is not judged with hindsight9 . . . . Important
factors to be considered when deciding how much force can be used to apprehend or subdue a
subject include, but are not limited to, the severity of the crime at issue, whether the subject
poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others and whether the subject is
actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. As an example of text describing
resistance levels, the Indian Police Department provides a range, from “non-verbal and verbal
noncompliance” to “active aggression” to “aggravated active aggression.” As an example of text
8
clearias.com/encounter-killings
9
15
on force levels, the San Indian Department briefly states that: “When confronted by force or
resistance, an officer may use an objectively reasonable higher level of force to overcome that
resistance” (emphasis added). While elementary, articulating a sense of force and resistance
levels provides officers with a cognizable scale to think through in relation to the resistance
presented. It is also important to note that while a policy may technically refer to force or
resistance levels, this language may be quite cursory. Furthermore, there are a few core
protections that speak to the permissibility of specific tactics that are worth noting in light of
these policies largely failing to incorporate the five substantive policy commitments discussed
above. This includes not shooting at moving vehicles (90%), not using deadly chokeholds unless
fatal force is allowed (40%),not shooting at someone running away 10. If feasible, an officer will
identify him or herself as a police officer and issue a verbal warning before using deadly forc. In
addition, some polices discuss other verbal engagements that go beyond merely warning
someone that force will be used.
In terms of force levels, the Indian Police Department’s offers little textual discussion about
force levels but indirectly states: “While the type and extent of force may vary, it is the policy of
this department that officers use only that amount of objectively reasonable force which appears
necessary under the circumstances to successfully accomplish the legitimate law enforcement
purpose in accordance with this policy . In terms of resistance levels, the discussion is also
limited: it generally refers to “verbal and/or passive resistance to arrest,” which distinguishes
between forms of resistance. Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless a
person in the vehicle is immediately threatening the officer or another person with deadly force
by means other than the vehicle. A chokehold may only be used by an officer as a deadly force
option . . . when objectively reasonable to protect themselves or others from an imminent threat
of death or serious bodily injury. Although policies may include these tactical measures, their
specificity may not provide material restrictions since the relative absence of upstream
substantive protections such as exhausting alternatives and continuous reassessment might
unnecessarily create the conditions for using force in a way that aligns with exceptions in these
further downstream, on-the-ground tactical guidelines. For example, policies that do not have
substantive protections like force continua or de-escalation may be more likely to put officers in
10
www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Paper-Obasogie
16
tragic situations where exceptions to the downstream tactical guidelines may permit a deadly
response (e.g. shooting a fleeing felon or using a chokehold) that could have been avoided had
upstream substantive commitments such as proportionality been in place.
iii. Neglect of Substantive Protections Beyond the Bare Minimum:
Force Continua, De-Escalation, Exhaustion of Alternatives, Proportionality, and Reassessment

Overall, the policies surveyed neglect substantive protections. First, policies contained a force
continuum or matrix only forty-five percent of the time. This means that the majority of the
policies did not include textual or visual aids describing some kind of continuum along which an
officer should increase or decrease force relative to resistance. When appropriate and consistent
with personal safety, to reduce or eliminate the necessity to use force.” Another example of de-
escalation is from the Police Department’s policy, which states that police will “when feasible,
employ de-escalation techniques to decrease the likelihood of the need to use force during an
incident and to increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance. This language specifically notes
that de-escalation is about more than just using less force or less severe force, it is about
increasing options and, ultimately, trying to avoid the use of force, fatal or non-fatal. Hence, such
language is missing from half of the policies we reviewed. Third, exhaustion of alternatives was
present in only thirty percent of policies. It is the policy of this Department to use deadly force
only as a last resort when reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or are not feasible to
protect the safety of the public and police officers 11. Similarly, the Seattle Police Department’s
policy states: “Officers will use physical force only when no reasonably effective alternative
appears to exist, and only then to the degree which is reasonable to affect a lawful purpose 12.”
Yet, the vast majority of policies do not contain directives that police should seek nonviolent
resolutions before using force. Fourth, proportionality is a concept included in a minority of
policies as well (twenty-five percent). An example of proportionality can be found in SFPD’s
policy: “Proportionality. When determining the appropriate level of force, officers shall, when
feasible, balance the severity of the offense committed and the level of resistance based on the
11
hg.org/legal-articles/the-history-of-police-brutality-and-what-it-means-for-you
12
17
totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time.” Similarly, the
Seattle Police Department’s force policy states that the use of force should be proportional. In
order to do so, “the level of force applied must reflect the totality of circumstances surrounding
the situation,” which “does not require officers to use the same type or amount of force as the
subject” but clarifies that the “more immediate the threat and the more likely that the threat will
result in death or serious physical injury, the greater the level of force that may be proportional,
objectively reasonable, and necessary to counter it. Consequently, the fact that these five
important policies that encourage thoughtfulness among officers were largely absent indicates a
lack of substance and depth in many use of force policies. In effect, these are policies that
incentivize restraint and care. Yet, overall, the content of most use of force policies in this
dataset are insubstantial and lack fundamental yet essential safeguards for individuals interacting
with police. Without these protections, we are left with superficial and perfunctory policies that
confer little to no guidance or tangible tactics for minimizing force severity and frequency. This
allows for unnecessary loss of life and other public health harms.
Other Important Qualities: Officer Intervention and Reporting, Medical Aid, and General
Philosophical Statements13
First, only 30% of policies mandate that an officer should intervene to stop another officer when
that officer uses clearly excessive force and only 35% require an officer to report another officer
using such force. The majority of policies do not contain this kind of language requiring officers
to intervene or report when they see excessive force. Second, while the provision of immediate
medical aid seems like an obvious duty, twenty percent of policies do not include language
stating that officers should either perform first aid or summon medical personnel when police
force results in injury.Third, a number of policies include a statement regarding their general
philosophy on the “sanctity of human life” (75%) and that they are bias- or prejudice-free
(15%).77 For example, the Phoenix Police Department’s force policy states that the department
“respects the dignity of all persons and recognizes the sanctity of human life, rights, and
liberty.”78 Relatedly, a few policies include a statement on bias. The Austin Police Department’s
policy states that it “recognizes and respects the value of all human life and dignity without
13
omct.org/press-releases/statements/india/2020/01/d25670/
18
prejudice to anyone. Members shall carry out their duties, including the use of force, in a manner
that is fair and unbiased. Whether these proclamations mean anything substantive is unclear.
Nevertheless, it may at least be significant to police culture for a policy to self-identify as
upholding these values.
19
5. POLICE VIOLENCE DUE TO CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT
Police brutality in Uttar Pradesh.

It was midnight at a police barracks in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and in a freezing
windowless room about 150 Muslim men and boys sat huddled, bloodied and bruised. Some of
the shivering prisoners had raw gashes across their hands and faces; others had broken limbs
splayed out at awkward angles. The beatings from police came frequently, according to multiple
corresponding accounts; to those who asked for water or closed their eyes in drowsiness or
simply did nothing at all. Over and over, metal rods and bamboo canes hit soft human skin.
Some had been stripped of their clothes. The youngest among them was just 12 years old, said
witnesses.
How hundreds of innocent Muslim residents of the city of Muzaffarnagar came to be rounded up
on 20 December, before being tortured in police detention, is part of what Indian activist and
academic Yogendra Yadav described as an unprecedented and ruthless “reign of terror” imposed
upon the country’s most populous state over the past two weeks.
Since last month, India has been engulfed in the biggest nationwide protests in over four
decades. People of all religions, classes, castes and ages took to the streets in opposition to a new
citizenship amendment act (CAA) passed by the prime minister, Narendra Modi, and his Hindu
nationalist BJP government, which many say discriminates against Muslims and undermines
India’s secular foundations. The government has dealt with the dissent with increasing
repression, with authorities banning gatherings of more than four people and demonstrators met
with batons and tear gas14.
Nowhere has the crackdown been so brutal and so openly communal against the Muslim
community than in Uttar Pradesh. According to accounts given to the Guardian by dozens of
victims, witnesses and activists, police in the state stand accused of a string of allegations: firing
14
theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/03/we-are-not-safe-indias-muslims-tell-of-wave-of-police-brutality
20
indiscriminately into crowds; beating Muslim bystanders in the streets; raiding and looting
Muslim homes while shouting Islam phobic slurs and Hindu nationalist slogans; detaining and
torturing Muslim children. The allegations further include forcing signed confessions and filing
bogus criminal charges against thousands of Muslims who had never been to a protest.
Hundreds of Muslims and activists remain behind bars across Uttar Pradesh and thousands have
been placed on police lists. And the orders, it appears, come from the very top.
BJP state chief minister, Yogi Adityanath, a militant Hindu nationalist notorious for his open
hatred and persecution of Muslims, pledged to take revenge on protesters in the wake of the
unrest. The police took him at his word. “It was detrimental for Muslims,” said activist Kavita
Krishnan, describing the events that unfolded across the state on Friday 20 and Saturday 21
December.
That day in Muzaffarnagar, trouble began when a peaceful demonstration against the citizenship
act turned violent as police clashed with protesters. Stones were pelted and vehicles were set
alight. In response, police opened fire on the crowds. Nearby, maulana Asad Raza Hussaini, a
respected Muslim cleric, and his students at Sadaat Madrasa, an Islamic seminary, were resting
after afternoon prayers when about 50 police officers, bearing batons and iron rods, broke down
the doors and burst in. They were allegedly looking for people who had taken part in the protest
but upon entering the madrasa began violently smashing everything in their pathway15.
“The maulana told the policemen gently that none from the seminary took part in any protest
rally and pleaded for them not to vandalise the Qur’an centre in the madrasa,” said a neighbour
who witnessed the police attack but did not want to be identified for fear of reprisal. “It was then
that the policemen and Rapid Action Force personnel [a branch of the police that deals with
crowd control] pounced on him.”
The police then rounded up Hussaini and 35 of his students, 15 of whom were under 18 and
mostly orphans, and took them to a nearby police barracks. Here the cleric was, witnesses allege,
stripped of his clothes, beaten and a rod shoved up his anus, causing rectal bleeding, while the
students were allegedly tortured with bamboo rods and made to shout Hindu nationalist slogans
Jai Shri Ram” [Hail Lord Ram] and “Har Har Mahadev” [Save us Lord Shiva].
15
21
“The maulana had been beaten up very badly and was left without a single cloth on his body and
when he was released we found him in very bad shape,” said Salman Saeed, a local Congress
leader who came to pick up Hussaini and several students from Civil Lines Barracks. “He was
badly wounded and bloodied, with many bruises across his body. He could not stand up on his
legs and was bare-bodied. We were shocked to see the maulana in that condition. He is bed-
ridden now16.”
While Hussaini and all his underage students were released at 2am that night, 12 adults students
and the madrasa cook remain behind bars and have been charged with taking part in violence,
despite never partaking in a protest.
The young students were not the only underage Muslim prisoners in Muzaffarnagar police
barracks that night. Upon seeing the commotion in the streets, 14-year-old Mohammad Sadiq,
who worked as a mason’s assistant, set out to find his 11-year-old brother. Cars and motorcycles
had been set alight and as protesters were fleeing around him, he too began to run. It was then
that a dozen police pounced on him, hitting his legs with batons to make him fall to the ground
and then unleashing a torrent of blows, he said.
“The police said to me, ‘if you tell us the names of 100 Muslims involved in the riots we will
stop beating you’,” recounted Sadiq, as he lay bed-bound and weak from his injuries in his one-
room family shack. “I kept telling them I had nothing to do with the riots, that I did not know
anything but they kept beating me. The policemen told me to shout ‘Jai Sri Ram’ and I told them
I would not so they put an iron rod into the flames of the car that was on fire and then held it
against my hands to burn me.”
“Then some of the police officers tried to pick me up and put me in the flames of the car on fire,”
Sadiq said, “but two of them said ‘no, let’s just take him to the police station’.”
Sadiq was kept in police detention for the next four days. Stripped to his underwear, he said he
was tortured. For two days he was given no food or water and no medical treatment for his badly
bleeding wounds. When he was finally released his condition was so bad his mother, Rehana
Begum, fainted when she came to collect him.
16
indiatimes.com/topic/List-of-cases-of-police-brutality-in-India
22
“His father is dead so he was the only earning member of this house but he has been beaten so
badly across the knees he can not walk and can not work now so what will happen to us?” she
said, her head in her hands.
According to multiple accounts, in the late-night raids on Muslim homes carried out in
Muzaffarnagar and across the state over those two days, women, children and the elderly were
not spared the brunt of the police brutality.
One such victim was 73-year-old Hamid Hasan, who was viciously beaten when police stormed
into his house late on 20 December, using metal batons to attack him, his 65-year-old wife and
his 22-year-old granddaughter, Ruqaiya Parveen, who was hit so hard across the head she
collapsed from the wound and had to have 16 stitches.
Hasan wiped away tears as he showed the wrecked remnants of the wedding gifts purchased for
his granddaughter’s forthcoming marriage, including a destroyed television, ripped sofa,
overturned fridge and smashed air-conditioning unit he had saved up his whole life to buy. “My
family did not take part in any protests, why would they do this to us,” wailed Hasan, who could
barely walk from his injuries. “Muslims in this country are being made to live in fear; even in
our homes we are not safe from violence now.”
Hasan’s 14-year-old grandson Mohammad Ahmad was also dragged from his bed by the
officers, beaten in the street and then detained and allegedly tortured by police in the police
barracks, along with Hasan’s son Mohammad Sajid, 40. Ahmad recounted how he witnessed
officers force his uncle Sajid to sign a confession that a gun and bullets had been found in the
police raid on their home. “He did not want to sign it but he had to because we were terrified,”
whispered Ahmad softly, his legs still wrapped in bandages from the beatings17.
After 24 hours Ahmad was released back to his family, but Sajid remains behind bars, his
medical condition worsening by the day.
Official figures put the protest death toll in the state at 17. All were Muslim and the youngest
was eight. Activists allege a deliberate obfuscation by the police around these deaths, with none
of the families given postmortem reports.
17
23
The sole fatality in Muzaffarnagar on 20 December was Noor Mohammad, 26, a day-wage
labourer who was shot over half a kilometre away from where the protests took place. Police
allege he was killed by protesters. His wife, 23-year-old Sanno Begum, who is seven months
pregnant with their second child, wept as she said all she wanted was “justice for my husband
and my daughter”.
“If they are not giving us the postmortem report, then it must be the police who shot him. I want
justice from the government. I have got a little daughter. I have no one to support us now,” she
said through tears.
Not only did the police force the family to bury Noor 60km (40 miles) away from
Muzaffarnagar, but they accompanied the body to the ground, prevented proper funeral rites
being carried out and then confiscated the burial certificate from the family. “It is clear they want
to destroy all evidence about his death,” said his brother-in-law Mohammad Salim.
The Muzaffarnagar police did not make themselves available for comment.
Over 500km across the state in the city of Kanpur, Mohammad Sharif, 74, sobbed as he
described how his son Mohammad Raees, 30, died on 20 December in the crossfire of a protest.
Raees had been working that day, washing utensils for a wedding, when he wandered out to see
the commotion in the street and was hit by a police bullet. “He was not a protester, he was killed
because he was Muslim,” said Sharif. “I want to die. Why I am alive when he is not? How can
we go on living now?”
Almost two weeks have passed since the night of the raids but the climate of fear has not eased,
with many abandoning their homes altogether. After the Guardian met with two activists in
Kanpur this week, they were called into the police station and threatened with being charged
with sedition if they spoke to the media again. They subsequently requested their identities be
kept anonymous.
The Uttar Pradesh government insists its actions were justified. “Every rioter is thinking they
made a big mistake by challenging Yogi ji’s government after seeing strict actions taken by it
against rioters,” said the chief minister’s office in a recent series of twitter posts. “Every rioter is
shocked. Every demonstrator is stunned. Everyone has been silenced.”
24
Police violence in Delhi

On December 13, the Delhi police unleashed brutal violence against thousands of students and
teachers of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), attacking them with baton and tear gas. The students and
teachers were taking out a march to Indian parliament against the discriminatory citizenship
amendment act (also known as CAB), recently passed by far-right Indian government.
The act provides pathway for naturalization to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and
Christians from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh migrants, but not to Muslim refugees or
refugees from other neighboring countries who may also face religious persecution. The students
were also demanding scrapping the proposed pan-India National Register of Citizen or NRC,
which would seek to identify undocumented immigrants. The NRC when it was implemented in
the northeastern state of Assam has led to more than 1.9 million people excluded from the list.
While the government is currently constructing detention camps for undocumented immigrants,
the existing ones have been notorious for their inhumane conditions as 26 deaths have been
documented so far18.
The protests in Jamia university is part of a nationwide popular protest actions against the CAB
and NRC, which critics argue is an attempt by the government to create a Hindu majoritarian
nation.
On Friday afternoon, police launched a crackdown against the Jamia protesters as soon as they
marched out of the university campus. Some of the police personnel were seen throwing stones
at the protesters. The police even entered the campus to thrash students and lobbed tear gas
inside the university. According to reports, more than 50 students were detained by police and
around 30 students were severely injured in the police action. One student lost part of his hand
after a tear gas canister exploded near his hand.
18
hg.org/legal-articles/the-history-of-police-brutality
25
Several journalists were also injured in the police repression. Newsclick’s Rafat, Tariq, Apoorva
and Avinash were injured in the police baton charge and tear gas attack.
Delhi Police and brutality19

The Delhi police, which comes directly under the control of the central government led by right
wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is notorious for brutality against student protesters.
On December 08 and November 18, police thrashed students of Jawaharlal Nehru University
who were protesting against hostel fee hike and demanding affordable education.
According to political observers, despite Delhi police being a law enforcement agency of India’s
capital city, it is not only poorly trained but biased to deal with the issue of protests. It is alleged
that police have been prejudiced towards protests against the government, beating up and
slapping criminal charges against those opposing the far-right and neoliberal policies of the
ruling BJP. While the right wing protesters receive police escort, protest by working class and
students are received with baton charge and tear gas.
Observers note that, many in the police force, including the top brass think that baton in their
hands are a source of power and authority to do whatever they want. The police in Delhi, like in
many across India seems more than happy to smash heads with their baton of anyone ‘daring’ to
speaking against the government’s unjust policies.
19
.indiatimes.com/topic/List-of-cases-of-police-brutality-in-India
26
6. EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS
‘Encounter Killings’ is the term used to describe extrajudicial killings by the police or the
armed forces when they encounter the alleged criminals or suspected gangsters.
Extrajudicial Killings20
In India, the death sentence can be awarded only on the rarest of the rare instances – by the
Supreme Court of India – after following the due process of law.The term extrajudicial killing is
used for executions done by the state outside the due process of law.
Why encounter killings receive the support of masses?

The common man is highly unsatisfied with the long-delay in the justice-delivery process. Very
often, the accused are not convicted due to lack of evidence. Many see encounter killings are a
means of ensuring speedy justice.
Encounter Killings – The problem

What if the those who are killed by encounters are innocent?
What if the authorities start to misuse the power?
What if the killings eliminate any further proof of other persons involved?
Rule of law is the fundamental principle of governance of any civilised liberal democracy. It
avoids any sort of arbitrariness.
20
clearias.com/encounter-killings
27
History of Extra-Judicial Killings in India

There were attempts in many states to govern through “rule by law” and oppose “rule of law”. In
this case, the police had assumed the role of both investigator and judge.
There were many reports of encounter killings in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal.
Recently, two states notorious for extrajudicial killings are Manipur and Uttar Pradesh.
Is Encounter Killing an offence?

The only two circumstances in which such killing would not constitute an offence are
 if death is caused in the exercise of the right of private defence.

 if it is necessary to arrest the person accused of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life – under Section 46 of the CrPC, which authorises the police to use
force, extending up to the causing of death, as may be.
Extrajudicial Killing for Self Defence vs Extra Judicial Killing as

Retaliation
The apex court, when dealing with a PIL on alleged 1528 extra-judicial killings in Manipur from
2000 to 2012 by Armed Forces said:
A distinction must be drawn between the right of self-defence or private defence and use of
excessive force or retaliation.
Very simply put, the right of self-defence or private defence is a right that can be exercised to
defend oneself but not to retaliate.
28
What if the Encounter Killings are fake?

There can be cases when the encounter killings are pre-planned. Many encounter killings
generally take place with the prior consent or in full knowledge of the top authority. It may not
be an act of self-defence or retaliation – but just pre-planned murder by police authorities.
How should the death at police hands be investigated: The 16-point guideline by
the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court bench of chief justice R.M. Lodha and Justice Rohinton F. Nariman in 2014
outlined a 16-point guideline to follow in cases of death or grievous injury in police encounters.
As per the Supreme Court of India, every death at police hands must be recorded and
investigated by an independent agency or a police unit not involved in the case.
The guidelines, in brief, are as follows:
1. Tip-offs about criminal activities must be recorded either in writing or electronic form.
2. If pursuant to a tip-off the police use firearms and this results in the death of a person,
then an FIR initiating proper criminal investigation must be registered.
3. The investigation into such death will be done by an independent CID team which has to
fulfil eight minimum investigation requirements.
4. A mandatory magisterial enquiry into all cases of encounter deaths.
5. The NHRC or State commission must be immediately informed of the encounter death.
6. Medical aid to injured victim/criminal and a magistrate should record his statement.
7. Ensure forwarding FIR and police diary entries to court without delay.
8. Expeditious and proper trial.
9. Informing next of kin of the dead alleged criminal.
10. Bi-annual statements of all encounter killings to be sent to the NHRC and state
commissions by a set date in a set format.
11. Disciplinary action against and suspension of a police officer if found guilty of wrongful
encounter.
29
12. Compensation scheme under the CrPC to be followed for awarding it to the kin of the
dead victim.
13. Police officers must surrender their weapons for investigation, subject to rights under
Article 20 of the Constitution.
14. Intimate family of the accused police officer and offer services of lawyer/counsellor.
15. No out of turn gallantry awards for the officers involved in encounter killings.
16. The family of the victim can complain to the Sessions judge if it feels that these
guidelines have not been followed. The judge will take cognizance.
Note: The case originated with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the People’s Union for
Civil Liberties (PUCL) before the Bombay high court, which later came to the apex court in
appeal. PUCL had challenged the genuineness of at least 99 so-called encounters — staged
killings — between the Mumbai Police and alleged criminals resulting in their deaths between
1995 and 1997.
30
7. CONCLUSION
Public health engagement with police violence is crucial.96 By looking at police violence as a
public health issue, we can think of police use of force policies as the rules that enable or restrict
officers from being able to choose a course of action that affects the likelihood someone could
survive a given encounter. As we see from our findings, very few policies contain the language
and practices that could minimize harm and death and increase safety and survivability. In sum,
this article calls for reform of use of force policies to favor life over death, and to ensure that
there is a real and substantive infrastructure of harm minimization within these policies.
31
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books Referred.
 Police brutality by Jill Nelson

 Just violence by Rachel Wahl
Website referred
 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_India
 www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/asia/india-protests-police-muslims
 economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/List-of-cases-of-police-brutality-in-India
 omct.org/press-releases/statements/india/2020/01/d25670/
 law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Paper-Obasogie
 clearias.com/encounter-killings\
 hg.org/legal-articles/the-history-of-police-brutality-and-what-it-means-for-you
 theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/03/we-are-not-safe-indias-muslims-tell-of-wave-of-
police-brutality
32

Police Brutality and Extrajudicial Killings in India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Police Brutality and Extrajudicial Killings in India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLICE BRUTALITY AND EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS IN INDIA

POLICE BRUTALITY AND EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS IN INDIA

Divya Raunak, B.A. L.L.B (Hons)

Roll no. 2119

Mr. Shakeel Ahmed

Faculty of sociology of law.

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

ROLL NO.- 2119

2nd Semester (BA LL. B)

Chanakya National Law University

4. CASES OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN INDIA.......................................................................9

5. POLICE VIOLENCE, USE OF FORCE POLICIES, AND PUBLIC HEALTH..................13

6. POLICE VIOLENCE DUE TO CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT................................20

1. Objective of the study

4. Limitation of the study :

3. CASES OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN INDIA

 12 December 1930 – Bombay cotton mill worker Babu Genu Said was crushed by a truck

4. POLICE VIOLENCE, USE OF FORCE POLICIES, AND PUBLIC

A. POLICE VIOLENCE AND USE OF FORCE POLICIES7

B. POLICE VIOLENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH

Essentials of police policies.

i. The Bare Minimum: Reasonableness and Basic Protections.

iii. Neglect of Substantive Protections Beyond the Bare Minimum:

Force Continua, De-Escalation, Exhaustion of Alternatives, Proportionality, and Reassessment

5. POLICE VIOLENCE DUE TO CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT

Police brutality in Uttar Pradesh.

Police violence in Delhi

Delhi Police and brutality19

Why encounter killings receive the support of masses?

Encounter Killings – The problem

What if the authorities start to misuse the power?

History of Extra-Judicial Killings in India

Is Encounter Killing an offence?

 if death is caused in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Extrajudicial Killing for Self Defence vs Extra Judicial Killing as

What if the Encounter Killings are fake?

The guidelines, in brief, are as follows:

1995 and 1997.

 Police brutality by Jill Nelson

You might also like