On June 9, it was reported
that 26-year-old law student, M Stalin,
had been tortured by the police in Tirupati, Andhra
Pradesh. On his way to drop his family
members
at the bus station, he was picked up by the police on
suspicion
of being part of a red sander smuggling network and detained
for 18
hours. According to news reports, he pleaded with the cops to
enquire
with the college authorities and check up on his identity but
to no
avail.
During
his 18-hour detention at the Tirupati East police station,
Stalin
was reportedly beaten by canes and boots and his mobile phone
confiscated.
He was then thrown into jail with other accused persons.
His phone
was returned to him around 10 p.m. the
next day, at which
time he
made a call to his fellow comrades in the CPM’s youth wing,
DYFI. The
news reports quoted Stalin,
“The
police realised their mistake and were also ready to pay for
the
injury they caused. But I refused the money. They should have
cross-checked
my claims. Instead, they ignored everything I said and
did not
even give me a chance to speak,”
This
incident highlights the pervasiveness of the use of torture
within
India’s justice system, which the Asian Human Rights
Commission(AHRC)
has been raising for many years. Due process is an
inalienable
component of the rule of law, which in this case, as in
many
others, the police failed to follow.
In India,
due process has been codified within the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973. Section 50 of the Code mandates that the person
arrested
must be informed of the grounds of arrest and of his right to
bail.
Furthermore, Section 50A (1) mandates that the arresting
officers
have an obligation to inform someone else nominated by the
person
about the arrest, and the place where the person is being
detained.
The police officer must inform the arrested person of his
rights as
soon as he is brought to the police station.
Under
Section 50A (3), the police are bound by law to document the
name and
details of the person who has been informed about the arrest.
When an
article is seized from an arrested person, Section 51 requires
that a
receipt showing the articles that have been taken must be given
to the
arrestee.
These
rules are grounded in Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Indian
Constitution,
which detail the fundamental procedural safeguards
comprising
due process.
None of
these were followed in Stalin’s case. He was arbitrarily
detained,
his mobile phone was confiscated and he was prevented from
informing
a family member or friend about his arrest. He did not have
a lawyer
present during his ‘interrogation’, which was in fact
torture.
Even if Stalin was a confirmed member of a red sander
smuggling
network, it is not a justification for torture.
In the
landmark case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997
SC 610),
Justice D. Anand wrote:
“Efforts
must be made to change the attitude and approach of the
police
personnel handling investigations so that they do not sacrifice
basic
human values during interrogation and do not resort to
questionable
form of interrogation. With a view to bring in
transparency,
the presence of the counsel of the arrestee at some
point of
time during the interrogation may deter the police from using
third degree
methods during interrogation.”
The
police have committed patent illegalities in the present case of
the law
student Stalin. He was arbitrarily detained; his mobile phone
was
confiscated and he was prevented from informing a family member or
friend about
his arrest. He did not have a lawyer present during his
‘interrogation’
which was in fact, torture. Even if Stalin was a
confirmed
member of a red sander smuggling network, it is not a
justification
or ground to use torture as a tool of investigation or
indeed,
punishment for being a criminal. The AHRC calls for a speedy
investigation
into this crime and swift conviction of the guilty.
This case
reaffirms that it is crucial for India to draft a robust
anti-torture
legislation, which is a current subject of debate regarding extradition
of suspects from abroad. The Asian Human Rights Commission has written extensively about India’s lack
of torture law
as well
as the major loopholes in an earlier draft law. While we are eagerly
awaiting the new and
amended
draft for discussion, it is hoped that the Indian state recognizes the
huge
vacuum it
will leave if the new law is drafted without keeping in mind
India’s
human rights obligations under international law.
# # #
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) works towards the radical
rethinking and fundamental redesigning of justice institutions in
order to protect and promote human rights in Asia. Established in
1984, the Hong Kong based organisation is a Laureate of the Right
Livelihood Award, 2014.
Read this Statement online
<http://www.humanrights.asia/
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) works towards the radical
rethinking and fundamental redesigning of justice institutions in
order to protect and promote human rights in Asia. Established in
1984, the Hong Kong based organisation is a Laureate of the Right
Livelihood Award, 2014.
Read this Statement online
<http://www.humanrights.asia/
No comments:
Post a Comment