oppn parties Supreme Court Says Indiscriminate Arrests Show India To Be A Police State

News Snippets

  • Maharashtra cabinet is likely to bee expanded today with the Shiv Sena and the BJP equally sharing the new berths
  • Kapil Sibal says there is 'no hope left' in Supreme Court, slammed by law minister Kiren Rijiju
  • Centre tells Rajya Sabha that Bengal got zero MGNREGS payout this fiscal for not complying with Central directives
  • Monsoon session of Parliament ends 4 days early
  • Chess Olympiad: India A, comprising Tania Sachdev, Koneru Humoy and Bhakti, among others, look set to win gold
  • CWG: India's best ever perrformance with 22 golds, 16 silvers and 23 bronze medals and 4th position on the table
  • CWG: Sharath Kamal wins gold in men's singles in table tennis
  • CWG: Satwik-Chirag win gold in men's doubles in badminton
  • CWG: PV Sindhu wins gold in women's singles in badminton
  • CWG: Lakshya Sen wins gold in men's singles in badminton
  • Mamata Banerjee says states should not be forced to implement the NEP
  • PM Modi asks states to raise farm output
  • Differences between JD(U) and BJP in Bihar came to fore again as JD(U) chief Lalan Singh accused the BJP of repeating the Chirag Paswan model with RCP Singh
  • CWG: Lakhsya Sen and PV Sindhu enter finals in badminton while Sharath Kamal enters TT finals
  • CWG: Indian women lose to Australia by 9 runs in cricket to settle for silver
Nitish Kumar resigns as Bihar chief minister, breaks alliance with the BJP /////// Most likely will form the government in alliance with RJD, Congress and Left parties
oppn parties
Supreme Court Says Indiscriminate Arrests Show India To Be A Police State

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-07-12 05:45:10

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the habit of investigating agencies to make indiscriminate arrests. It said that this shows a colonial mindset and also gives the impression that India is a police state. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sanjay Kishan Kaul asked the government to enact a law to restrain investigating agencies from arresting accused unnecessarily.

The rule is that if the charge against the accused does not warrant a punishment of more than seven years in jail, he or she should not ordinarily be arrested. The Supreme Court has directed investigating agencies in this regard many times, most specifically in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar. Then the unwritten rule is that if an accused is cooperating with the investigation, is not likely to flee or is not likely to threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence, he or she should not be arrested as a matter of routine.

But the ground reality is completely different. Investigating agencies blatantly ignore Supreme Court directives and whenever a criminal case comes up, their first action is to arrest the accused, regardless of the fact whether the charge merits a punishment of over seven years in jail. The court also observed that the conviction rate is very low and Indian jails are full of undertrials who are spending more time in jail due to delays in justice delivery than the maximum punishment for their alleged crime would have warranted. The courts are also guilty of allowing this by most of the times not granting bail to the accused, ignoring the maxim 'bail, not jail'. The inconsistency in court orders regarding bail has made investigating agencies arrest-happy as they seek custodial interrogation which is unnecessary if the accused is cooperating. If bail is expressly granted in cases where the Supreme Court has said arrests should not ordinarily be made, the investigating agencies will get the point and stop making unnecessary arrests.

Although it will help if a comprehensive law is enacted (as suggested by the apex court) to prevent unnecessary arrests and lay down rules for granting bail, the courts can rectify the situation by being consistent in granting bail and not allowing the pleas of investigating agencies for custodial interrogation if the rules the Supreme Court has repeatedly set are satisfied. All accused need protection from arrest if they cooperate with the investigation, are not likely to abscond, threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence. Investigating agencies must not be allowed to use their power to arrest as a tool of harassment.