One in four police personnel in India support the idea of mobs acting as judge, jury and executioner in matters they consider grave. And 22 percent of police personnel believe that killing ‘dangerous criminals’ is better than giving them a legal trial.

These are among the findings of a report on the status of policing in India, which was published by Lokniti-CSDS and Common Cause and launched at the India International Centre on Tuesday. The report is based on a survey of 8,276 senior and junior police personnel across 82 locations in 17 states and Union territories, and also includes in-depth interviews with doctors, lawyers, and judges whose jobs involve interacting with the police and people in custody.

The findings paint a grim picture of policing in India, with widespread justification of torture and poor adherence to arrest protocols. The report was unveiled by a panel of experts, including former Odisha High Court Chief Justice S Muralidhar, lawyer and activist Vrinda Grover, public health expert Dr Amar Jaisani, and retired IPS officer Prakash Singh.

Widespread justification of torture

Among the report’s most alarming revelations is that 30 percent of police personnel surveyed believe the use of third-degree methods is justified in serious cases, while 9 percent approve of the use even for petty crimes. IPS officers and those handling interrogations were the most likely to condone torture.

Police personnel were also found to justify violence beyond the accused, with 11 percent believing it is acceptable to hit or slap an accused’s family members, and 30 percent saying it is sometimes justified. Additionally, 25 percent supported slapping “uncooperative” witnesses, and 9 percent endorsed using third-degree methods against them.

Police personnel overwhelmingly believe that in order to properly fulfil their responsibilities, police should be allowed to use force without any fear of punishment – 26 percent strongly agree and 45 percent somewhat agree.

One out of two police personnel from Jharkhand and Gujarat have a high propensity to justify torture, while those from Kerala are the least likely to justify it.

Twenty-four percent of police personnel claim arrest procedures are rarely or never followed. IPS officers are the least likely to say that these procedures are always complied with, while upper subordinates are the most likely to say so. Compliance varies significantly across states, with Kerala ranked highest at 94 percent and Jharkhand reporting the lowest adherence at 8 percent.

Torture is among the first things to be entirely and explicitly banned in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as early as 1948, according to the report. The spirit of protection of fundamental rights in the UDHR is embodied in our Constitution. Like the prohibition of slavery, the prohibition of torture is a jus cogens norm, a fundamental right that cannot be breached by laws or any circumstances, including national emergencies. While most countries have ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1984, by making domestic laws, India has yet to do so, despite past parliamentary deliberations.

Victims mainly from marginalised communities

Interviewees said that the victims of torture are mainly people from poor and marginalised communities. A lawyer described it as “all the faceless and voiceless” are targeted. The report said Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, people who cannot read and write, and slum dwellers were common targets of torture. 

Eighteen percent police personnel feel that Muslims are “naturally prone” to committing crimes to a great extent.

Meanwhile, ten interviewees said they find it is “very rare” to see magistrates interacting with arrested persons. A lawyer described magistrates as “silent spectators” who “do not record anything or ask the arrested persons where and when they were arrested.

Doctors pointed out that medical examinations of arrested persons are often done by doctors without expertise in forensic medicine, who are less able to recognise signs of torture. Examinations are conducted by whichever doctor is available, even if they are an “eye specialist or anaesthesiologist”. Another pointed out that there are no forensic doctors in district and taluk hospitals.

Discrepancies in data and need for training

According to the report, there are discrepancies in the reporting of custodial deaths cases across various data sources. For instance, in the year 2020, the National Crime Records Bureau reports 76 cases, the National Human Rights Commission reports 90 cases, while the National Campaign Against Torture, a civil society initiative, documents 111 cases of custodial deaths in the same year.

The report claimed that a majority of the deaths in police custody occur within 24 hours of arrest. In 2022, as high as 55 percent of the deaths in police custody reported by NCRB were of persons not on remand, that is those in police custody in the first 24 hours of arrest. In Gujarat, 96 percent of the deaths in police custody that took place between 2018-22 were within 24 hours of arrest.

In 2022, judicial inquiries, which are mandatory in all cases of custodial deaths, were ordered in only 35 percent of the cases. Between 2018 and 2022, cases were registered against police personnel in just 10 percent of the reported deaths in police custody. Of the cases registered, chargesheets were filed in just 12 percent cases. There were zero convictions for deaths in police custody during this period.

According to the survey, 79 percent of police personnel believe that training on human rights is very important. Among the respondents with a high propensity to justify torture, 70 percent feel that training on prevention of torture is very important.

Justice Muralidhar slams NHRC silence, ‘political influence’

After the report’s release, a panel of experts spoke about the findings as well as the need for reforms and accountability for the police force in a session moderated by Suhas Palshikar, chief editor of Studies in Indian Politics. There was some criticism for the report too.

Retired IPS officer Prakash Singh called the findings “painful reading” but defended the use of force in dealing with hardened criminals. He argued that “fear of the police must exist” and criticised the report for focusing excessively on police failures rather than improvements.

Lawyer Vrinda Grover highlighted the lack of legal accountability, pointing out that despite Supreme Court rulings, India has yet to criminalise torture. She noted that the report fails to address sexual violence as a form of police torture, which disproportionately affects women and marginalised groups.

Public health expert Amar Jesani raised concerns about the role of medical professionals in enabling torture, pointing out that autopsy reports are often manipulated to cover up custodial deaths, particularly in cases involving marginalised groups. He also suggested that the survey may have underestimated the true extent of torture due to underreporting.

The key speaker of the discussion, Justice S Muralidhar, delivered a sharp critique of human rights enforcement in India, particularly the NHRC’s failures, the erosion of accountability, and the distortion of language in governance. He began by reading out a letter he was writing to his “friend” and current NHRC chairperson, Justice V Ramasubramanian, questioning the independence of NHRC’s leadership. While the NHRC chairperson is appointed by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India, he argued that the process remains politically influenced, often favouring candidates aligned with the establishment.

Justice Muralidhar said words like “encounter” have now been sanitised, shifting from a neutral term to a euphemism for extrajudicial killings. He said that governments manipulate language to control narratives, making phrases that once signified human rights concerns now sound suspicious or subversive. He listed 12 methods of police torture documented in the report, including beatings, electric shocks, sexual violence, and psychological abuse, and questioned why NHRC has largely remained silent despite Supreme Court directives against torture.

Justice Muralidhar also called for NHRC’s intervention in protecting marginalised communities, especially sanitation workers, and challenged the commission to address bulldozer demolitions targeting alleged offenders and release statistics to counter claims that it ignores complaints from BJP-governed states. 

This report comes amid a ban in India on critically acclaimed film Santosh to hide the reality of police violence and discrimination within the force. But we have a new Sena project to uncover it all. Click here to contribute.