On 24 November 2024, the street of Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal was covered in quiet after savage clashes over an archaeological survey decision of a Mughal-era Mosque passed by a district court on November 19, in an appeal claiming that it was built on a Hindu temple location.[1]
There are 5 Muslim people murdered and numerous were harmed by the police powers while resisting another Survey of Shahi Jama Masjid after the previous survey had been conducted with the cooperation of Masjid’s management. A lot of individuals are arrested, and FIRs are enlisted against 15 named and 2000 unnamed individuals.[2]
This occurrence raises two major questions: Did police forces utilize excessive force to scatter the protesters? Do Muslims have no confidence in Police Forces as well as government agencies since the survey was held under the supervision of police forces?
Since 1947, there has been a chain of state-led (or state-facilitated) massacres of the Muslims and marginalized communities by large, where police stood by as quiet spectators or, indeed, purportedly facilitated the Hindu mob.
We have seen the Moradabad Massacre in 1980, the Nellie Massacre in 1983, anti-Sikh Massacre in 1984, the Hashimpura Massacre in 1987, the Mumbai pogrom in 1992 after the demolition of Babri Masjid, the Ramabai Massacre in 1997, the Gujarat Massacre in 2002, and the most recent assault on the student of Jamia Millia Islamia in 2019, Delhi pogrom in 2020 and numerous others that are conveniently forgotten.
The extraordinary brutality of Police powers against Muslims can be followed from the most heinous conduct of the Moradabad police open-fired case, which is maybe the most fitting illustration of Jallianwalla Bagh of Independent India. On 13 August 1980, Muslims were celebrating Eid all over the nation. In contrast, people were performing Namaz in the Eidgah of Moradabad where around 40,000 had assembled. The day of celebration converted into a dreadful and black day in the history of free India around 300 plus innocent Muslims were murdered in an open firing by the police and the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC).
Compare that to Jallianwalla Bagh, where thousands had assembled to celebrate Baisakhi, and the armed force under the command of General Dyer opened fire, murdering around 400 individuals. At that point, MP Syed Shahabuddin called the Moradabad open fire case in the Jallianwalla Bagh of Free India.[3]
On October 31, 1984, at that point, PM Indira Gandhi was assassinated in an act of retaliation for “Operation Blue Star” by two of her Sikh bodyguards. Following Gandhi’s death, assaults on Sikhs commenced over several Indian cities. No less than 2,733 Sikhs were slaughtered in the capital, Delhi, alone in the carnage. The Nanavati Commission in 2005 expressed that the assault was a well-planned, systematic way and same pattern in every Sikh’s locality. Male individuals of the Sikh community were removed from their houses, thrashed up, and similarly burnt them. The two Human rights organizations, the People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), revealed a report on the examination of anti – the Sikhs Delhi slaughter, Who Are the Guilty? The reports concluded that the savagery was the result of a “well-organized arrange marked by acts of both alleged commissions and omissions by vital politicians of the Congress and by members in the Police Forces.[4]
On July 11, 1997, residents of Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar, a largely Dalit-populated urban colony in Bombay, woke up to discover their statue of Dr. Ambedkar was desecrated by a garland of shoes around his neck. After this dishonorable act, the nearby Dalit populace accumulated to dissent and began to block the Eastern Express Highway in front of the Colony. Within a moment, Special Reserve Police Forces (SRPF) conveyed in the region and, without giving an ultimatum, lathi charge, burst tear gas shells, not even firing a few rounds in the air or any genuine or positive endeavors to scatter the individuals began open firing on the unarmed individuals. As a result, 12 Dalits were killed and numerous were harmed. This shocking act done by police forces not only appeared to be police brutality but to Caste motivated as well as politically motivated massacres of Dalits, as revealed by the Human Rights Commission and several reported NGOs like the National Alliance of People’s Movement and the Corporation SC/ST Employees Association. [5]
The below mentioned are some constructive measures need to be adopted Urgently to resolve these issues .
Reservation of Minorities in Police Forces
Vibhuti Narain Rai a retired IPS and author uncovered a shocking report but not unforeseen as he collected this information from the victims of Communal savagery throughout the nation and revealed it in his dissertation paper “Perception of Police Neutrality amid Communal Riots”, Amid Communal Riots Hindus always visualize the police as their companions whereas nearly each Muslim and Sikh sees them as his enemy.
Another question he inquired about the Communal violence sufferer, majorly the Muslims, was whether they would approach the police when their life was in danger, or their property was under threat amid Communal violence. The tremendous, larger part answered no to this address; a few of them would not like to react to this address, and barely 5-10 per cent said that they would like to approach the police. These reactions, once again, are fearful.
Despite this, reports also revealed that more Muslims are arrested before, during, and after violence happens than Hindus. These are not only horrifying but also contemplating that the world’s largest religious minority, Indian Muslims, have no confidence in the police powers who represent the state. Losing confidence in the police may amount to losing confidence in the state.
The handling measures of these deep concern issues will have to be complex. To begin with and foremost, minorities must be given appropriate representation in the police forces. We must have reservations about this.
This kind of positive discrimination for the protection and safeguard of minorities is not new, nations like the USA and UK have embraced it for blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities.
After the Hashimpura Massacre fixing the proper representation in the Police forces is the most urgent need for reform because after the Moradabad Massacre state government established Vishesh Sewa Dal within PAC, especially for the protection of minorities unfortunately after seven years the same sections were also involved in the killing of Muslims in Hashimpura that was created for the protection for minorities. A clearer example of the impact of lacking reservations in Police forces.[6]
Break the political nexus from the police
As we have seen in the above-mentioned massacres like the Anti – Sikh massacre, Mumbai Pogrom, Gujarat Massacre, Ramabai Massacre of Dalits, and recent Delhi pogrom against Muslims, where the executive played in the hands of the Politicians, or we can also say police acted as private armies of the elected rulers. Therefore, it’s time to break the political nexus from the police. The mechanism directed by the Supreme Court after the perusal of various reports and commissions in the Landmark Judgement of Prakash Singh vs UOI in 2006 with additional suggestions can be useful to break this nexus and strengthen the police forces to work without the unwarranted influence of Politics.
(1) There is an urgent need to amend section 39 of the Model Police Act, 2006,[7] which was drafted under the chairmanship of Soli Sorabjee, Former Attorney General of India. This section states that the responsibility and accountability of Police forces vest on the state government. Due to this purpose, the state government shall exercise the power of superintendence over the Police. This section not only opens the door for the Politicians to interfere in the working of the Police but also takes the autonomy of the executive and forces them to act as Private armies of the ruling party. The below suggestions are taken from the perusal of the relationship between the legislative and executive of several developed countries like England, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia. Through the adoption of these methods, we can break the nexus of Politicians from the Police department and strengthen the executive to exercise their duty independently.
The state government shall not interfere in these subjects and solely vest on the State Police: –
(a) the maintenance of law & order concerning any individual or group
(b) regarding any investigation and prosecution of crimes
(c) Internal matters related to individual Police officers.
(d) enforcement of the criminal law in particular cases and classes of cases
The state government may only direct the police in matters of functions, duties, general conduct, and economic management of the Police. If any dispute occurs in the direction of this section, then as soon as practicably possible, the government should provide the direction in writing form, upload it in a gazette, and reveal a copy in assembly.[8]
(2) The State Security Commission – According to the direction of the Supreme Court, every State has to form this body, the State Security Commission, to ensure that police forces are not exercised under the unwarranted pressure of state legislation. This body works as a watchdog and ensures the independence of the state police. Also, the recommendation of the body is binding on the state government.[9] This could have happened to be one of the best and most impactful mechanisms to resolve this issue but the honorable court made the CM / Home Minister as Chairman and DGP as ex-officio secretary of the body with the assistance of other members like sitting or retired judges, leaders of the opposition, Three non-political citizens of proven merit and integrity, and Five independent Members of the commission.
If this watchdog body is headed by the CM and DGP raises the question of the impartiality of the working of the body and may not build trust among the public because they are themselves parties. Also, the honorable court is silent on the appointment of the three non-political citizens and five independent members if their appointments are exercised by the government and do not take the confidence of the people. Then again, it creates mistrust.
To address this concern, the top post holder should come from other than legislative and executive then only it brings faith and trust among the public for the commission. The suggested chairman and secretary, including academicians, retired Judges, retired Police Officers, or Social Activists, shall be appointed by the governor with the advice of the concerned Chief Justice of the High Court.
(3) As per the guidelines of Prakash Singh Vs UOI Director General of Police (DGP) shall be selected by the state government amongst the three most senior officers who are enlisted for promotion to that rank by the UPSC. Through this selection process of the DGP, state government or ruling parties enjoy the ultimate power and uphold the political nexus in the Police Administration.
To break this nexus we have to create more impartiality and transparency in the selection of DGP, in my opinion, DGP shall be appointed by the Governor on the binding recommendation of a selection committee of five members, which consists of the Chief Justice/ senior most of sitting judge of the High Court, Chief Minister / Home Minister of the state, Leader of Opposition/ leader of the largest opposition party in the assembly, Chairman of the State Security Commission, and one retired Police Officer. If we adopt this selection process, we can bring more transparency and independency to the police forces from the legislative. Adopting this method is not a newly arrived because we follow more or less the same method in the appointment of the Chief Election Commission / Election Commission.
Some more suggestions: once the DGP is appointed, he/she must keep his position to the fixed tenure. The governor shall remove the DGP from his position only for the specified reasons mentioned in the Prakash Singh Vs UOI, but the governor shall be binding on the advice of the State Security Commission.
The changes needed in the legal regime
(1) The use of force by police to maintain law and order and protect themselves and others from harm can be justified, but it must always be done within the ambit of the law with a focus on safeguarding human rights and upholding public safety. Chapter Xl of the BNSS deals with “Maintenance of public order and tranquillity. As per section 148, a police officer may use force to disperse an assembly but doesn’t specify the amount of force to be used.[10]
There should be the need to clarify the amount of force to be used by police forces; otherwise, it would open the doors to misuse of the law, and police may use the force blatantly or without fear of accountability. As we have seen earlier, police used excessive force or lethal force even at that time; it was not necessary, and in the end, people suffered.
In the famous case of Anita Thakur V. State of J&K, the Supreme Court noticed that: “In those cases where the gathering is unarmed or peaceful, use of police force is not needed at all. However, in those situations where a crowd or assembly becomes violent, it may necessitate and justify using reasonable police force.” [11]
(2) section 151 of the same chapter of the BNSS states that No prosecution or No Criminal offence against any person for any act purporting to be done under sections 148, 149 & 150 shall be instituted in any Criminal Court except it is sanctioned either by central or state government.
Again, this section grants a free hand to the Police Forces as well as the Armed forces to go away even if they are involved in brutality or excessive force against innocent people.
To address this critical concern, the section should be amended and incorporate some exemptions. Under those circumstances, the aggrieved shall approach the Criminal Courts without the sanction of the government such as
(1) Use of Excessive force or lethal force against the people.
(2) victim of grievous hurt or death
(3) Violation of Fundamental rights especially Article 19 (1) (b); to assemble peaceably and without arms as well as Article 21, Right to Life.[12]
Again section 218 of BNSS grants procedural immunity for public servants, which states that when a public servant is accused of committing an offence alleged to have been committed while discharging his official duty, without the granted permission by the government, no court shall take action against the crime. The aggrieved cannot approach the court without the sanction of the government.
There have been numerous such cases of police torture and savagery especially against the weak and marginalized. Usually, the concerned government refuses to give sanctions for their political interest or maybe they are involved too in the crime. In a well-known recent fake encounter case of Ishrat Jahan, the Gujarat government rejected the permission of the CBI to prosecute the three accused police officers in the case.[13]
Exemption of vicarious liability: The authorities should be liable for their wrongdoings
First, the existing laws make hurdles the ordinary citizens to approach the court against any misconduct by the Police Forces therefore if how the case reaches the court, it’s not easy for ordinary citizens to fight against misconduct of police forces, it becomes unbearable when there are political executives also involved with the police forces in the crime. Thereafter, if the court discovers the police officers are liable for the offences, then they impose a pecuniary obligation on the state as compensation for the misconduct caused. The precedents below prove the same;
Rudul Sah vs. the State of Bihar: In this case, the petitioner, even after being acquitted, was unlawfully detained in prison for 14 years. The Apex Court passed an order that the state should pay compensation of 30,000 under writ jurisdiction for violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.[14]
In PUDR v. Delhi, Police Headquarters and Anr, A labourer was brutally beaten to death. The court had decided the victim should be compensated 50,000 Rupees by the Delhi administration.[15]
In Nilabati Behera vs. the State of Orissa, in this case, a custodial death was reported by a woman whose son had succumbed to the wounds inflicted on him by the police in police custody. The Supreme Court ordered that the death occurred due to police violence. The compensation should be awarded to the aggrieved party under Article 32 because this heinous act violated Fundamental rights.[16]
The biggest flaw that should be addressed here is that the state is vicariously held liable for any misconduct of police forces, not police officials themselves. And when the state is held liable for any offences, the most usual achievement of the aggrieved party is getting compensation in pecuniary form.
For the above concern, the doctrine of vicarious liability should be exempted in these types of cases. Therefore, police officials shall deter and prevent themselves from exercising any misconduct against ordinary people in the fear of criminal liability and aggrieved not only get compensation but also embrace Justice.[17]
Conclusion In the above analysis, we have seen how in a series of events since independence, Police forces are cruel against the marginalized, oppressed and minorities. As per horrifying reports, world largest religious minority, Indian Muslims losing faith on the executive and other government agencies. If this oppression continues then obvious we can expect organised or unorganised response from these communities against the state which perhaps make Chaos in our country and hurdle to move away in the field of education, employment, scientific, rational and other area of development. To solve this ongoing problem as well as imminent catastrophe, we have to adopt several reforms in the Police urgently. The above-mentioned suggestions include proper representation of minorities in the Police , separation of powers between Police & legislative because on several occasions police act as a private armies of the ruling party, removal of granted immunity to the Cops, Exemption in Vicarious liability of state for misconduct of police forces.
[1]Newslaundry.com, https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/11/28/police-shot-my-son-what-happened-during-ups-sambhal-violence#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17350208389664&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newslaundry.com%2F2024%2F11%2F28%2Fpolice-shot-my-son-what-happened-during-ups-sambhal-violence ,
(Last visited Dec.18, 2024)
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/uttar-pradesh/sambhal-mosque-survey-clash-internet-suspended-in-tehsil-schools-shut-after-violence-kills-3-injures-20-cops/article68908112.ece, (last visited Dec.18, 2024)
[3] Sharjeel Imam & Saquib Salim, Remembering 1980 Moradabad Muslim massacre: A harsh indictment of ‘secular’ and Left politics, FirstPost (Dec. 24, 2024, 5:00 PM),
[4] who are the guilty?, the People’s Union for Democratic Rights and People’s Union for Civil Liberties,(2003) , https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d9b7c8/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJx5S5oMGKAxVWdfUHHbOeLZIQFnoECB0QAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw3bHkxKFHQwk56xp3vehGrw.
[5] Yogesh Maitreya, The Ramabai Nagar Massacre of 1997, Frontline Magazines (Dec.20,2024, 8:00 PM) https://frontline.thehindu.com/books/book-excerpt-the-ramabai-nagar-massacre-of-1997-an-extract-from-water-in-a-broken-pot-by-yogesh-maitreya/article66736929.ece
https://hindi.sabrangindia.in/interview/%E2%80%98no-riot-can-last-more-24-hours-unless-state-wants-it-continue%E2%80%99 , ( last visited Dec.16, 2024)
[7] Model Police Act, 2006, § 39,
[8] Humanrightssinitiativee.org
https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/aj/police/india/initiatives/police_executive_paradigm_stenning.pdf ( last visited Dec.12, 2024)
[9] Prakash Singh v. Union of India., (2006) 8 SCC1.
[10] The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , § 148,149,150,151 & 218, No. 46 Acts of Parliament, 2023
[11] Anita Thakur v. State of J&K.,(2016) 15 SCC 525.
[13] Ravi Singh Chhikara & Alisha Luthra, Justice can’t breathe! Time to revisit immunity granted to cops in India, The Leaflet, (Dec.12, 2024 , 2:00 PM)
[14] Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar., AIR 1983 SC 1086
[15] PUDR v. Delhi, Police Headquarters and Another, (1989) 4 SCC 730
[16] Nilabati v. State of Orissa., AIR 1993 SC 1960
[17] Sourav Suman, The Police Brutality in India: A Critical Analysis, The Law Brigade Publishers,
(Dec.17,2024,4:00AM)https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Sourav-Suman-IJLDAI.pdf
Author: Abdur Raheem
Juris Centre 