Rule of Law and Indian Police I Experts Insight I Must watch I NISSMAT Podcast

What this session covered

The session, opened by the institute's president, took the form of a moderated conversation between the moderator and a single guest speaker, a retired senior officer of the Indian Police Service. The speaker framed the rule of law as binding on everyone, in uniform or out of it, drawing on the Preamble to the Constitution and the idea of righteousness in governance. He described the police as the most visible arm of the state and placed justice at the centre of the criminal justice system, of which the police are the first responding component alongside prosecution, judiciary and prisons.

The exchange then turned practical. Asked about the competence of a station house officer to frame charges, the speaker explained that charges are not settled by an investigating officer alone but pass through legal advisers, forensic support and supervisory vetting. On remedies for citizens wronged by the police, he listed the departmental hierarchy, state human rights commissions, the courts, right-to-information requests and police complaints authorities. When the moderator raised the difficulty faced by security personnel implicated in human rights complaints, particularly in counter-insurgency settings, the speaker responded that the requirement of prosecution sanction acts as a safeguard and is granted sparingly, while insisting that genuine custodial excesses must be pursued, citing past cases in which police personnel were convicted only after decades. He cautioned that a state which takes the law into its own hands can become something dreadful.

The later discussion covered the non-implementation of Supreme Court directions on police reform, the continued operation of the colonial-era Police Act, and the practice of appointing officiating directors general of police so that incumbents remain removable at will, which the speaker read as unwillingness by state governments to grant the police autonomy. The moderator raised trial by media, which the speaker agreed pronounces guilt before the courts do, and the absence of any compensation for people acquitted after long years in jail, for which the speaker suggested both compensation and a formal certificate of innocence. He closed by examining why officers resort to unlawful methods, pressure from society, seniors and the political executive, and career incentives, disputed the view that third-degree methods are necessary given that confessions to the police carry no evidentiary value, and urged that India enact an anti-torture law in line with international convention.

Key points raised

• The speaker argued that the rule of law applies equally to police and public, describing the police as the most visible symbol of the state and justice as the core of the criminal justice system.
• Charges against an accused are not framed by a station house officer alone, the speaker explained, but are vetted through legal advisers, forensic support and supervisory officers.
• Remedies discussed for citizens aggrieved by police conduct included the departmental hierarchy, state human rights commissions, the courts, right-to-information requests and police complaints authorities.
• The speaker attributed the stalling of police reform to state governments' reluctance to grant autonomy, pointing to the survival of the colonial-era Police Act and the use of officiating DGP appointments to avoid tenure protections.
• The speaker disputed the belief that third-degree methods are necessary for investigation, noting that confessions to police have no evidentiary value, and called for India to enact an anti-torture law.
• Also raised were trial by media, which the speaker said pronounces guilt before the courts, and the absence of compensation or formal exoneration for those acquitted after long incarceration.