Expanding Police Powers and the Threat to Civil Liberties in India

By Shantanu Kumar Sonal

The democratic framework of India is founded on the values of justice, liberty, and individual rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Lately, the growing empowering of police forces and the implementation of harsh legislation under the pretext of national security and public order have engendered concerns over authoritarianism. The analysis is whether India is achieving an essential equilibrium between national security and civil freedoms or is experiencing a tendency towards state overreach. The Indian Police Act of 1861, instituted during British colonial governance, created a centralized police force to regulate the population, frequently employing coercion and force. The colonial history persists in influencing the operating architecture of the Indian police, even though numerous modifications following our independence have been implemented. The IInd Administrative Reforms Commission Report (2007) advocated transforming the police into a citizen-oriented service dedicated to law enforcement while adhering to democratic principles. Despite attempts at change, numerous policies and suggestions remain unexecuted, resulting in a culture of impunity and abuses by law enforcement. As we can see, in the last 10 years, India has experienced a significant rise in legislative actions that provide augmented powers to the police and law enforcement organizations. An explanatory instance is the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) Amendment of 2019, which authorizes the government to classify individuals as terrorists without judicial consent. Intended as a counterterrorism measure, the amendment has been criticized for being exploited against activists, journalists, and political dissenters, infringing on fundamental rights protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court, in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), maintained stiff bail conditions under the UAPA, thereby allowing prolonged incarceration without trial, which raises problems about due process and fairness. Reports from organizations like the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) reveal that the UAPA provisions have been employed to crush dissent, demonstrating a hazardous expansion of state power. The National Security Act (NSA) of 1980 is another act regularly used for preventative imprisonment for up to 12 months without official charges. Although designed to fight significant dangers to national security, its use against journalists, activists, and protestors has raised significant concerns. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court although supported the validity of preventative detention but also highlighted procedural protections. Unfortunately, these precautions are routinely disregarded in practice, leading to arbitrary imprisonment and torture. Moreover, numerous states have implemented revisions to criminal statutes that further empower the police. In an instance, the Madhya Pradesh Special Security Act (2020) provides for extensive discretionary imprisonment of anyone considered a risk to public order, which opponents believe subverts notions of natural justice and generates an atmosphere of terror among vulnerable communities.

Beyond physical enforcement, the growth of police powers extends into the digital arena through monitoring laws. The Information Technology (Intermediary et al. Ethics Code) Rules of 2021, authorize government agencies to request extensive data from digital platforms, raising concerns about mass surveillance and privacy violations. This is particularly noteworthy given the Supreme Court's verdict in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. However, poor transparency and monitoring procedures in government surveillance tactics have led to suspicions of unrestrained interference in individuals' private lives and suppression of free speech.

The vast growth of police authority poses significant issues for civil liberties and democratic governance in India. Firstly, civil liberties are deteriorating, particularly freedom of speech and personal liberty. Article 19(1)(a) provides free expression, while Article 21 assures the right to life and liberty. When state power targets dissenters and critics under strict legislation, it threatens the state's commitment to safeguarding constitutional rights. The resurrection of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code shows this trend, although the Supreme Court, in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), confined the definition of sedition to acts involving violence or instigation of violence, its misuse to suppress government critics has grown, leading to claims of overreach and authoritarianism. Subsequently, judicial scrutiny and accountability are vital in defending civil freedoms as the judiciary serves as a check on governmental abuses, as proven by D.K. Basu v. governmental of West Bengal (1997) when the Supreme Court established norms to prevent custodial brutality and misuse of police authorities. However, procedural delays and case backlogs sometimes hinder timely judicial action, reducing safeguards against misuse. For the judiciary to remain an effective guardian of civil liberties, fast and decisive action against state surplus is crucial. Judicial vigilance ensures that laws expanding police powers comply with constitutional protections and prohibit their exploitation. The absence of adequate independent oversight systems worsens the possibility of police malfeasance. Reports by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) have revealed numerous incidences of custodial brutality and police overreach. Despite repeated suggestions by the Law Commission of India and other expert groups to establish effective oversight systems, several states still need to do so, resulting in inadequate accountability. Independent oversight groups that aim to investigate and remediate police misbehaviour are crucial to sustaining public trust in law enforcement. The influence on democratic institutions and free expression is disturbing. Expanding police powers can stifle public conversation and dissent, which is essential to a thriving democracy. Civil society organizations and human rights activists have claimed growing incidents of harassment and intimidation through severe regulations such as the UAPA and NSA. Amnesty International and other global groups have highlighted the misuse of these laws to silence dissent, restrict civil society activities, and dissuade political involvement—the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 intends to modernize India's evidentiary system and streamline criminal trials. While reforms aimed at increasing law enforcement capabilities are vital, they must be tempered with safeguards against state overreach and potential misuse of police authority. Effective implementation of these reforms requires careful judicial scrutiny, legislative accountability, and procedures to protect civil rights. The potential for misuse highlights the need for a precise balance between security imperatives and fundamental liberties. The debate over strengthening police powers underlines the necessity of establishing a balance between national security and the protection of civil liberties.

The ruling in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) highlights the need for enhanced police accountability and professionalism. Independent oversight groups should monitor police actions and investigate misconduct allegations to prevent abuses of power and ensure adherence to constitutional norms. Swift resolution of police misconduct cases is essential to deter future violations while ensuring that any laws expanding police powers align with constitutional principles. Legislative accountability is crucial; meaningful debates in Parliament and state legislatures are necessary before enacting laws that increase police authority. Public participation in legislation promotes democratic accountability and reduces the risk of misuse. Strengthening transparency and independent oversight mechanisms is vital. Civilian review boards and human rights commissions should be empowered to investigate complaints of police misconduct. Ensuring transparency in police operations is essential for protecting individual liberties. The unchecked expansion of police powers in India poses significant risks to civil liberties and democratic governance. Balancing security needs with human rights, enhancing judicial oversight, and establishing accountability procedures are necessary to uphold India's democratic ideals. By adhering to these principles, India can preserve its commitment to justice, liberty, and the rule of law.

Bibliography

1.      New criminal laws expand police powers and restrict civil liberties https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/new-criminal-laws-bns-old-draconian-laws-ipc-sedition-bjp/article68416697.ece

2.      Concerns as India replaces colonial-era laws with new criminal codes https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/1/concerns-as-india-replaces-colonial-era-laws-with-new-criminal-codes 

3.      Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955.

4.      Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

5.      Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1579.

6.      Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1.

7.      D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610.

8.      Law Commission Report No. 267 on Criminal Justice System Reforms https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/report_twentyfirst/

9.      Citizens and the State: Policing, Impunity, and the Rule of Law in India https://www.thehinducentre.com/incoming/citizens-and-the-state-policing-impunity-and-the-rule-of-law-in-india/article67887312.ece

10.    Police Training and Reforms, Standing Committee Report Summary https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/police-training-and-reforms