That the law-enforcers in Maharashtra brazenly violate the law they have sworn to uphold — without fear of consequences — is evident in the state’s shocking track record of custodial deaths. In three years from 2012 to 2014, Maharashtra registered the maximum deaths — 94 in total — in police and judicial custodies, leaving Gujarat (40), Andhra Pradesh (34), Tamil Nadu (28) and UP (27) far behind in the race for the dubious distinction. These statistics offered by Union minister of state for home, Kiren Rijiju, in response to NCP Member of Parliament Supriya Sule’s question in the Lok Sabha, confirm a 17-year-long trend in the state. For the majority of the 15 years between 1999 and 2013, Maharashtra accounted for 23% or 333 cases of the total 1,418 custodial deaths in India — and had consistently maintained the top position among states in this sort of notoriety. Sule must be aware of the fact that during most of these years when her party was part of the ruling alliance in the state with the Congress, only 19 policemen were chargesheeted, but none of them were convicted. The practice of shielding guilty cops had only grown stronger between 2012 and 2014 when not even a single charge sheet was filed, let alone securing conviction. Unsurprisingly, the deceased mostly belonged to the Muslim and Dalit communities — as pointed out by a Bombay high court division bench last year — who have been traditionally discriminated against, not just in Maharashtra, but in the rest of India as well. Bear in mind that these two communities — the poorest of the lot — comprise the largest segment of the undertrial population in the country. 

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

Since the political establishment was keen on keeping the police under its thumb instead of cleaning up the force of rogue elements, it was left to the judiciary to instill some sense of accountability among the cops. Last year, the same Bombay high court bench had directed the state director-general of police to form a committee to examine cases of custodial deaths and suggest steps to prevent them. It had also asked the state government to install CCTV cameras to cover every corridor and room at all police stations across Maharashtra. 

While the judiciary has done its bit to curb police high-handedness, in contrast, the National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) role has been limited. It appears that though the rule entails that every death in custody has to be reported to the NHRC, it has mostly been kept in the dark. The NHRC, on its part, can do little to assert itself as it is not empowered to take punitive action against offenders. 

There may be a glimmer of hope in The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010, which has been gathering dust as the earlier UPA government had failed to steer it through Parliament. The bill also points to India’s failure to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, although it is a signatory since October 1997. However, experts opine that in its current form, the bill may not be equipped to tackle the different forms of torture employed to extract information and confessions. 

It’s sad but true that in the prevailing structure, securing conviction of public servants, including the police, is a difficult task. There is little that the occasional public outrage can achieve in the battle against a well-entrenched system where violence by law-enforcers has the tacit approval of law-makers.