Justice is Not About Teaching Someone a Lesson, The Perils of Normalizing Custodial Violence in India
Why in News?
In a recent judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court, while hearing a custodial death case, observed that police officers involved in the death of a Dalit man in custody appeared to have intended “to teach a lesson” to the victim for alleged public misbehavior. This remark, embedded in a detailed legal opinion, has sparked widespread concern about the institutional mindset that rationalizes state violence as a tool for discipline. The case highlights the persistent issue of custodial violence in India, its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, and the judiciary’s role in either perpetuating or challenging this culture.
Introduction
Custodial violence remains one of the most glaring contradictions in India’s democratic framework. Despite constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and due process, incidents of torture, abuse, and deaths in police custody continue to surface with alarming regularity. The recent Chhattisgarh High Court judgment not only exposes the systemic failures in addressing such violence but also reveals a deeper problem: the normalization of brutality under the guise of “teaching a lesson.” This phrase, though seemingly innocuous, reflects a mindset that prioritizes punishment over justice and coercion over constitutionalism.
This article delves into the specifics of the Chhattisgarh case, the implications of the High Court’s language, the structural issues enabling custodial violence, and the broader patterns of caste-coded enforcement. It also examines the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and suggests pathways for institutional reform.
The Chhattisgarh Case: A Timeline of Injustice
The facts of the case are both tragic and revealing. A Dalit man was arrested for alleged public misbehavior and taken into custody. Within hours, he was dead. A medical examination conducted shortly after his arrest found no injuries, but the postmortem revealed 26 wounds on his body. The trial court convicted four police officers of murder, recognizing the brutality of the act. However, the Chhattisgarh High Court reduced the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, citing a lack of intent to kill but acknowledging that the officers knew their actions could cause death.
The High Court’s Problematic Language
The High Court’s observation that the officers intended “to teach a lesson” to the victim is particularly troubling. This phrasing:
-
Rationalizes violence as a form of discipline rather than condemning it as a criminal act.
-
Ignores the power dynamics at play, especially the victim’s identity as a Dalit.
-
Undermines the constitutional principles of dignity, proportionality, and due process.
By framing the violence as a misguided attempt at correction, the court inadvertently legitimizes the very logic that perpetuates custodial torture.
The Institutional Mindset: Violence as Deterrence
The idea of “teaching a lesson” is rooted in a vigilante logic where violence is met with greater violence. It represents a departure from the rule of law, where justice is administered through rights and procedures, not fear and punishment. This mindset is not isolated to a few rogue officers but reflects a broader institutional culture that views coercion as a necessary tool for maintaining order.
Historical and Cultural Context
-
Colonial Legacy: The Indian police system was designed by the British to suppress dissent and maintain control, not to serve the public. This legacy continues to influence police behavior.
-
Culture of Impunity: Police officers often operate with a sense of impunity, knowing that investigations into custodial violence are rare and convictions even rarer.
-
Social Biases: Deep-seated caste and class biases ensure that marginalized communities bear the brunt of this violence.
Caste-Coded Enforcement: The Erasure of Identity
In the Chhattisgarh case, the victim was a Dalit. The trial court had acquitted the prime accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), and the High Court did not intervene. This reflects a broader failure to recognize caste as a motivating factor in violence against marginalized communities.
Jurisprudential Failures
The SC/ST Act was enacted to prevent atrocities against Dalits and Adivasis and to ensure swift justice. However, courts often interpret the law narrowly, requiring explicit evidence that violence was caste-motivated. This ignores the reality of structural power, where caste operates as an invisible hand guiding actions and decisions.
-
Burden of Proof: Victims are often required to prove caste intent through overt slurs or declarations, which are rarely made in modern contexts.
-
Structural Violence: The violence inflicted on Dalits and Adivasis is often a product of ingrained social hierarchies, yet courts fail to acknowledge this unless it is explicitly stated.
Disproportionate Impact
Custodial deaths disproportionately affect Dalits, Adivasis, and the poor. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), a significant percentage of custodial deaths involve individuals from these communities. This is not coincidental but reflects a pattern of caste-coded enforcement where state power is weaponized against the marginalized.
Judicial Complicity: The Power of Language
The judiciary plays a critical role in either challenging or perpetuating the culture of custodial violence. Language matters because it shapes legal reasoning, and legal reasoning shapes policy. When courts use phrases like “teaching a lesson,” they:
-
Send a message that state brutality is sometimes understandable.
-
Undermine the constitutional values of dignity and due process.
-
Empower violators by providing moral shelter for their actions.
Landmark Judgments Ignored
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the need to curb custodial violence. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent torture and deaths in custody, including:
-
Mandatory medical examinations.
-
Notification of arrest to family members.
-
Video recording of interrogations.
-
Establishment of independent oversight mechanisms.
Similarly, in Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. (2005), the Court condemned custodial violence and called for strict action against perpetrators. Despite these guidelines, compliance remains weak, and enforcement is sporadic.
The Path to Judicial Integrity: Rejecting the Logic of Violence
To address custodial violence, the judiciary must first reject the language and logic of “teaching a lesson.” This requires:
1. Reframing Legal Reasoning
-
Courts must unequivocally state that violence in custody is never disciplinary but always criminal.
-
Judgments should emphasize the constitutional values of dignity, equality, and due process.
2. Robust Application of the SC/ST Act
-
Courts must recognize that caste-based violence is often structural and does not require explicit declarations of intent.
-
The SC/ST Act should be applied in all cases where social power is weaponized against marginalized communities.
3. Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms
-
Independent investigations into custodial violence must be conducted by agencies not affiliated with the police.
-
Police officers convicted of custodial violence should face stringent penalties, including dismissal and imprisonment.
4. Ensuring Procedural Safeguards
-
Full compliance with Supreme Court guidelines on arrest and detention.
-
Use of technology, such as body cameras and CCTV footage, to monitor police behavior.
Broader Structural Reforms
Beyond the judiciary, systemic changes are needed to address the root causes of custodial violence:
1. Police Reforms
-
Implementation of the Supreme Court’s directives in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), which called for:
-
Fixed tenures for police officers.
-
Separation of investigative and law-and-order functions.
-
Establishment of police complaints authorities.
-
-
Sensitivity training to address caste and class biases.
2. Legislative Action
-
Enactment of a law against torture, as recommended by the Law Commission of India.
-
Strengthening the SC/ST Act to ensure its effective implementation.
3. Civil Society and Media Engagement
-
Civil society organizations must continue to document and highlight cases of custodial violence.
-
Media should play a watchdog role, holding institutions accountable.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment is a stark reminder of how easily state violence can be normalized when framed as “teaching a lesson.” This logic is not only antithetical to the Constitution but also perpetuates a culture of impunity and injustice. The judiciary must lead the charge in rejecting this mindset and upholding the rule of law. Only then can India truly claim to be a democracy where justice is delivered with dignity, equality, and fairness.
5 Questions and Answers
Q1: What did the Chhattisgarh High Court say in its recent judgment on a custodial death case?
A: The court observed that police officers intended “to teach a lesson” to the victim, a Dalit man, for alleged public misbehavior. This language rationalizes violence as discipline rather than condemning it as criminal.
Q2: Why is the phrase “teaching a lesson” problematic in legal contexts?
A: It legitimizes state violence, undermines constitutional values like dignity and due process, and reinforces a culture where police act as both enforcer and judge.
Q3: How does caste play a role in custodial violence?
A: Custodial violence disproportionately targets Dalits and Adivasis due to deep-seated social biases. Courts often fail to recognize caste as a motivating factor unless explicit evidence is provided.
Q4: What are some Supreme Court guidelines to prevent custodial violence?
A: In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Court mandated medical examinations, notification of arrest, video recording of interrogations, and independent oversight mechanisms.
Q5: What structural reforms are needed to address custodial violence?
A: Police reforms, enactment of a torture law, robust application of the SC/ST Act, and strengthening accountability mechanisms are essential to curb custodial violence.
