Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2024

Context

A report titled “Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2024” was recently released by Common Cause (NGO), in collaboration with the Lokniti Programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS).

Key Highlights

• • The report highlights systemic troubles of police violence, torture, and shortage of responsibility, based on interactions with 8,276 police personnel throughout 17 states and Union Territories.

• Perception of ‘difficult techniques’ in policing:

• • • 55% of police personnel assist the usage of tough strategies to create fear in most of the public.
    • Ambiguity exists on what constitutes “hard methods” vs. Torture.

• Mob violence and encounters:

• • • 25% justify mob justice in cases like sexual harassment and infant lifting.
    • 22% believe in stumbling upon killings over legal trials.
    • 74%, but, aid prison tactics even for risky criminals.

• Compliance with arrest approaches:

• • • 41% of police claim procedures are “always” followed.
    • 24% admit tactics are “rarely or in no way” followed.
    • Kerala reports highest compliance at 94%.

• Use of third-degree methods:

• • • 30% justify third-degree torture in critical cases. 9% justify even petty cases.
  • Victims in most cases from marginalised groups: Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, illiterates, and slum dwellers.

• Custodial deaths:

• • Agency – custodial deaths said (2020): NCRB (76), NHRC (70), National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT, a civil society initiative) (111).
  • Zero convictions for custodial deaths during 2018–2022.

Judicial and Medical Apathy

• Judiciary:

• • • There was consensus among lawyers and judges that confessions to the police ought to never be made inadmissible.
    • Magistrates frequently act as “silent spectators”, hardly ever interacting with the accused or recording arrest info.
  • Medical examination: Conducted by doctors without forensic knowledge. Sometimes performed by eye experts or anesthesiologists.
  • National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): It has been criticised for not defining torture and for its “coloured mind-set” toward the sufferers of torture.

• Encouraging insights from the file:

• • • 79% of police favour human rights training.
    • 71% aid prevention of torture.
    • 79% favour proof based interrogation techniques.

• Structural Causes Behind Police Torture in India:

• • • Colonial legacy of policing.
    • Lack of responsibility
    • Political and bureaucratic pressure for brief results.
    • Inadequate schooling and legal literacy.
    • Public tolerance of extra-criminal strategies because of delays in the criminal justice system.

• Global Practices – A Comparative Perspective:

• • United States: Brutal interrogation at Guantanamo Bay.
  • Iraq: Torture at Abu Ghraib jail.
  • Russia, China, Pakistan: Poor human rights statistics in custodial practices.

Recommendations and Way Forward

• Enact a comprehensive anti-torture law.
• Malimath Committee: Suggested that confessions made before a senior police officer of the rank of Superintendent or above should be admissible in proof with safeguards to save you coercion.
• The Law Commission of India (in its 69th Report (1977)): Proposed introducing Section 26A inside the Indian Evidence Act to make confessions before senior police officers admissible.

Conclusion

• The Common Cause-CSDS record paints a sobering picture of the staying power of police torture and the lack of institutional duty in India.
• The findings reveal deep-rooted structural and attitudinal problems in the police force.
• Therefore, a humane, rights based, and professional police pressure isn’t always most effective for upholding the guideline of law but additionally for rebuilding public trust inside the criminal justice system.
• Addressing police torture is not only a legal or administrative vital – it’s a ethical and constitutional responsibility.

Source: The Hindu

UPSC Mains Practice Question

The jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding lodging an FIR and conducting a probe within a particular state is being questioned by various States. However, the power of the States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Explain with special reference to the federal character of India. (2021)

Download as PDF