Can’t routinely accept human rights abuse claims of persons with criminal record: Allahabad High Court

It may not be prudent to routinely accept claims of human rights violation by persons with criminal record, the Allahabad High Court recently said [Shah Faisal vs State of UP and 4 Others].

The Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar added that such an approach would lead to a wrong trend of every criminal, who is arrested or interrogated, to seek compensation against actions of police officials.

“Further, if such proceedings are encouraged it will open the floodgates for false claims, either to mulct money from the State or as to prevent or thwart further investigation,” the Court said.

It was hearing a petition seeking action against two police officers for alleged custodial torture of one Shah Faisal. The petitioner (Faisal) also sought compensation from the government.

While the State denied the allegations, the officials in question told the Court that the petitioner had been named in a case of assault and in relation to that matter, he had been called to the police station. It was further submitted that the accused was released within a few hours.

After considering the counter arguments, the Court said it cannot be presumed the petitioner was innocent.

It further observed that remedy under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution against police excesses is available only when there is substantial evidence of custodial torture. 

It added that every arrest and detention does not amount to custodial torture.

“Keeping this in mind the Court while zealously protecting the fundamental rights of those, who are subjected to any kind of torture in the custody, should also stand guard against all false, motivated and frivolous claims in the interest of the society and to enable the police to discharge their duties fearlessly and effectively.”

The Court explained that it has a duty to ascertain the following before entertaining petitions seeking compensation or action against police officials:

(a) whether there is violation of any human rights or violation of Article 21, which is patent and incontrovertible. 

(b) whether such violation is gross and of such magnitude to shock the conscience of the court.

(c) whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that there was custodial torture. 

It added that when such an allegation is not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, the Court should not entertain such a proceeding.

The Court further stressed on a balanced approach in such matters.

“The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing. The Court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights. The violation of human rights has to be balanced with the implementation of law. There has to be a realistic balance between individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other.”

In this backdrop, the Court said it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is an innocent person. It also noted that he had complained against the police officials but they were discharged after an inquiry.

“More over, there is no violation of any human rights of the petitioner which is patent and incontrovertible, neither it can be said to be gross violation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the law enforcement agencies had gone overboard in repressing the crime in the society,” the Court said while dismissing the plea.

Advocate Adeeb Ahmad Khan represented the petitioner.

Advocate GP Singh represented the State. Advocate Ram Bahadur Singh represented the police officials.

[Read Judgment]