Supreme Court directs all DGPs to ensure safeguards of persons in police custody

AoR Ravinder Yadav gets landmark order in a SLP against Haryana state

Delhi Crown Bureau

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has sternly directed the Directors General of Police (DGPs) of all the states and UTs and the Delhi Police Commissioner to adhere to all safeguards available to persons under police custody, else “a very strict view shall be taken and coercive measures shall also follow against the errant personnel”.

The landmark order came from a two-judge bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra.

As per the Apex Court’s last order, Haryana DGP Shatrujeet Kapur was physically present during the hearing of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) on March 26.

Hearing the SLP titled “Vijay Pal Yadav Vs. Mamta Singh (IPS Haryana cadre) and Others” filed by Advocate on Record (AoR) Ravinder Yadav in a case of police high-handedness by Haryana cops, the Apex Court directed the cops in all states and UTs, and all other agencies endowed with the power of arrest and custody, to “scrupulously adhere to all Constitutional and statutory safeguards and the additional guidelines laid down by this Court when a person is arrested by them and/or remanded to their custody”.

AoR Yadav had filed the SLP two years ago alleging that the petitioner was subjected to physical abuse/torture by the Haryana Police cops after being taken into custody over a land dispute in Jhajjar district.

Drawing the Court’s attention to an e-mail sent by the petitioner’s brother to a senior cop, AoR Yadav reiterated that there was physical abuse at the concerned police station only because an e-mail was sent to the higher officials. And that, as a knee jerk reaction, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the petitioner two hours later after being taken into custody.

In its landmark order, the SC said, “Even if a person may be a criminal, the law requires that he be treated in accordance therewith. Even a criminal, under the law of our land, enjoys certain safeguards in order to ensure protection of his person and dignity. In this case, the petitioner, when picked up by the police, was at best an accused. It is possible to state that a common man can be expected to exceed his limits (where after appropriate action in law shall ensue), but not the police.”

Cautioning and warning the concerned Haryana cops to be careful in future, the Highest Court in its order said that the state’s DGP was directed to ensure that such type of occurrences didn’t recur and that there should be zero-tolerance on behalf of the senior officer(s) with regard to any alleged transgression of authority by any subordinate officer(s).

“The police is a very vital part of the State apparatus and has a direct bearing on the safety and security of the society at large and individuals in particular. The need, therefore, for maintaining the confidence of individuals and society-at-large in the police is paramount,” said the Court order.

Rejecting the Haryana state counsel’s contention that the checklist under Section 41(1)(b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was followed in the said case, the Court observed that “prima facie does not inspire confidence. Rather, it appears that only as a formality, the same has been submitted.”

It added – “We express our strong reservations with regard to filling-up of the checklist in a mechanical manner. Further, we caution and order that in futuro, such acts should not recur.”