Tamil Nadu Custodial Deaths: A Reason to Revisit Investigations into Police Atrocities

Kartikeya Bahadur

The allegation of police brutality and custodial death/murder of two persons at Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu has shocked the consciousness of the nation, with people questioning the conduct of the police. The High Court of Madras has had to step in and issue detailed instructions on how to carry out the investigation to ensure that justice is done to the victims, thus bringing to light how the Tamil Nadu Police was completely ill-equipped to handle the incident of custodial violence by its officers or inquire into the same the.

Almost three days after the death/murder of the victims, their family members approached the Hon’ble High Court. They requested for the postmortem to be conducted in the presence of at least three doctors and for the same to be video graphed, which isn’t otherwise a written protocol. This was requested to prevent the tampering of evidence. The Hon’ble Court while allowing the petition, went a step further and ordered that a division bench will hear the matter further.

The Hon’ble Court has since then initiated hearing in a Suo Moto Writ Petition directing the District Administration to provide support to the Judicial Magistrate to carry out an inquest (judicial investigation) as per Section 176(1A), Cr.P.C. which mandates inquiry by a judicial magistrate in case of death or rape in custody. However, this judicial inquiry was hindered by the District Police Authorities, for which the Court has initiated Contempt Proceedings. Even more shockingly, the Court ordered the revenue authorities to be positioned in the police station to ensure that there was no destruction of evidence. In addition to that, it also directed that the court registry will maintain a set of documents like the post mortem report for safekeeping and hand over the same to the CBI, as the state government had submitted that the case will be handed over to them. Later the Court even directed officers belonging to the CID to start investigating the matter as there was no guarantee when the CBI would be in a position to start their investigation. In addition to that, there was a likelihood that evidence will be destroyed in the meanwhile. The Hon’ble Court is continuing to monitor the case.

It is not for the first time that the issue of custodial violence is coming up before the Courts. There are many orders and guidelines issued by the Courts to deal with this issue. In 2006, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had given 7 major directions in the much celebrated Prakash Singh Judgement. One of these involved the setting up of a Police Complaint Authority (PCA), which would be an independent body to look into allegations of wrongdoing by the police. The proposed PCA had separate redressal tiers each for officers above the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), and for all officers below, and was to be headed by the retired judges who are outside bureaucracy as well as the subject experts. This would ensure that persons thoroughly familiar with the law and outside the control of the executive will monitor police functioning. Further in 2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in furtherance of the landmark D K Basu case mandated for CCTV cameras to be installed in all police stations, specifically for the purpose of addressing police atrocity.

Tamil Nadu government did, in fact, bring about The Tamil Nadu Police (Reform) Act, 2013 purportedly to implement the Prakash Singh Judgment, However, they chose to make the Home Secretary and the concerned Collectors, in charge of the State and District Authorities respectively. In a Public Interest Litigation filed in 2019, the state had informed the Hon’ble High Court, that the complaints authorities have been constituted. With a PCA in place in the state, when the news of custodial violence inside a police station came to light, the expectation was that there would be swift action. With abundant checks and balances imposed by the Courts, surely the system would swing into action, holding those in-charge accountable for their misconduct?

As gruesome as these present deaths are, with the intervention of the Hon’ble High Court, there is now some hope that the police personnel concerned may, in fact, be punished. The intervention of the High Court is however in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction and not routine. Similarly, the various directions passed in this case by the Hon’ble Court will not be the routine procedure for all custodial deaths. Even with Sections like 176 (1A) in place, in cases where it is exercised the actual ability of a judicial magistrate to successfully inquire into such matters has been laid bare. It is pertinent to note here that the Supreme Court is currently seized of an unrelated PIL praying for directions for mandatory investigation by Judicial Magistrate as provided under Section 176 (1A), and hopefully, they will deal with the difficulties of a Judicial Magistrate dealing with hostile police. 

Though the Prakash Singh judgement was passed in 2006, and compliance claimed not much progress has been made on the ground. States liberally modify the directions of the Court, many states have made bureaucrats in charge of the PCA, and there is no information of the manpower and resources of any PCA which would enable them to inquire into the police. Even the judgement on the installation of CCTV cameras has not been complied with. In the present case, it has been reported that though there were cameras in the police station, they were programmed to erase data the same day. Even though the Court is passing various orders to ensure fair investigation in the present case of custodial violence, these will not necessarily be followed in subsequent cases and incidents. The present case involved everything from destruction of evidence, to hindrance by colleagues of the accused policemen. The Madras High Court has come up with some very clear instructions including, video recording of post mortem which will be in presence of 3 doctors, roping in revenue officials to assist judicial inquest, calling in officers from state CID posted in a different district to carry out investigation till CBI officials were in a position to start their investigation and ensuring safe custody of relevant documents like postmortem reports. These are improvisations being made by the Court which have to be made the standard procedure and applied in all similar incidents. Holding state governments to account for the status of Police Complaints Authorities and setting out a clear and effective procedure for the investigation of police violence is critical to actually stop it, which is something that citizens must not lose sight of.