'Reflects Upon Entire Police Force': Madras HC Shocked To Learn That Sub-Inspector Hasn't Read Arrest Guidelines In Arnesh Kumar Case
story
Shocked over the fact that a Police Sub-Inspector had not even read the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar which provides guidelines on arrest, the Madras High Court observed that the Chief of Police had a duty to ensure that the guidelines reached every police officer.The very casual manner in which the officer replied to our query, as to whether, he had read the judgment in...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Shocked over the fact that a Police Sub-Inspector had not even read the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar which provides guidelines on arrest, the Madras High Court observed that the Chief of Police had a duty to ensure that the guidelines reached every police officer.
The very casual manner in which the officer replied to our query, as to whether, he had read the judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another shocks us. Such replies will reflect upon the entire Police Force...When the Hon'ble Supreme Court had come down heavily upon the Police force for indiscriminate arrest, the Chiefs of the State Police Force are required to ensure that the message reaches every Constable of the Police Force. An ignorant Police Force is as good as one not existing.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Kumaresh Babu was hearing a plea by a lawyer, who was suffering from locomotive disability seeking an enhancement of compensation in an order of the State Human Rights Commission. The petitioner had claimed that his arrest was improper and there was a blatant human rights violation.
Finding that the police force in the State was not given proper sensitisation to handle cases involving persons with disability, the court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department to ensure that district wise sensitisation is carried out.
There will be a direction to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department to ensure that the District wise Sensitization programmes are conducted for Police Officers including Constables regarding the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Such programmes shall be so designed that they throw enough light on the provisions of the enactment and the intendment of the legislation. Guidelines should also be issued to the Police Officers as to how they should handle such physically disabled persons.
The court added that similar guidelines should also be issued to Government Doctors who examine such persons with disabilities who run into conflict with law and are brought for medical examination.
In the present case, the petitioner was arrested on a false complaint that he used a bill hook and threatened to kill the de facto complainant. FIR was lodged under Sections 294B, 323 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code.
The court found that the allegations in the FIR seemed to be unnatural. It also noted that the High Court, in another petition, had already quashed the FIR finding that no ingredients were made out. Further, the petitioner suffered from Muscular Dystrophy, which is in degenerative physical condition and he had 80% disability. The court had thus remarked that it was humanly impossible for the petitioner to attack a nourished male.
Though the petitioner claimed that there were human rights violations both at the time of his arrest and during his time in the jail, the court only agreed with the first part. Though the petitioner claimed that he was not given proper food or physiotherapy. The court, however, noted that he was given a special diet, always in the Jail dispensary and certain special amenities were provided to him as a physically disabled person.The court observed that mere non-provision of certain amenities which would amount to a statutory violation may not strictly amount to Human Rights Violation.
The court thus found that the Human Rights of the petitioner were violated at the time of his arrest. Thus, finding that the compensation of one lakh rupees awarded by the SHRC was insufficient, the court enhanced the same to five lakh rupees of which four lakhs were to be paid by the State.
Installation of CCTV cameras
During the course of the hearings, the Petitioner informed the court that he had sought CCTV footages from the concerned police stations. However, the same was met with lukewarm response with the police either saying that there were no cameras or saying that the cameras were not functional.
Looking at the responses, the court expressed its dissatisfaction with the replies.
We also express our total dissatisfaction with the casual manner in which replies are being given to the queries made under the Right to Information Act by the Police Officers.
The court thus emphasized that every police station should be covered by functional CCTV cameras as per orders of the Supreme Court and instructions of the Central Government. The court directed the DGP to conduct periodical inspection to ensure functioning of these cameras.
Case Title: L Muruganandam v The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 490