By Sujit Bhar
Sometimes, the sheer incompetence of many of India’s police forces shows up in their arrogance. The lack of understanding of the law, accompanied by their desire to threaten and subdue an unsuspecting person, creates horrific stories. When arrogance accompanies these cravings, verbal and physical abuse at police stations happens. The police, answerable to their political masters, rather than to the rule of law, believe they are law unto themselves.
In a recent incident, the Bombay High Court taught the police a lesson in law, telling them to climb down from their high horses and learn a bit more of how laws are implemented in a civil world. The Court told the police that the act of recording audio in a police station would not become an offence under the stringent Official Secrets Act (OSA).
This lesson was imparted to the police by the division bench of the Court, comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Santosh Chapalgaonkar, sitting in Aurangabad. In doing so, the bench also quashed an FIR lodged against two brothers, one of whom works as a constable with the Mumbai Police. The two had been booked under the OSA for recording conversation with a police officer within the police station at Pathardi, Ahmednagar.
What had precipitated this incident and the humiliation of the police force, was in fact a case of misuse of power by the police against the aggrieved, in this case, the two brothers, Subhash and Santosh Athare.
On April 21, 2022, it was alleged by the two brothers that three persons had barged into their house, had assaulted their old mother and had even tried to outrage her modesty.
The brothers had reported this to the police, but on April 26, Subhash learned that only a non-cognisable offence was lodged by the officers of the Pathardi police station. And when he sought to know from the officers, why an FIR was not registered, he was allegedly abused in filthy language.
The police were so much in cohorts with the alleged criminals that they did not stop at even accusing a person who belonged to the police force. The police did not stop there. On May 2, 2022, the police officers called Subhash to the police station and pressured him to withdraw his complaint. It was then that Subhash recorded the conversation with the police officer and him on his phone.
Subhash then lodged a complaint with the director general of police, Maharashtra, highlighting the “threats” issued to him and his brother by the officers, for filing the case. While the applicants argued that the instant FIR was lodged (by the police against them) with an ulterior motive, the state justified the FIR.
The two brothers then petitioned the High Court, seeking to quash the July 19, 2022, FIR lodged against them by the Pathardi Police for offences under the OSA.
The bench noted that the entire episode as alleged in the FIR lodged on July 19, 2022, had taken place in the police station and the police had invoked the OSA, 1923.
The bench concluded in their September 23 order: “Section 2(8) of the said Act defines what a prohibited place is. A police station is not included in the said definition. Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, deals with Penalties for spying.”
The judges also said that in Section 3, “Penalties for spying, (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State—
“(a) approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the vicinity of, or enters, any prohibited place; or
“(b) makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy; or
“(c) obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy [or which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States];
“(Then) He shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend, where the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government or in relation to any secret official code, to fourteen years and in other cases to three years.”
The bench noted: “Anything done in the police is absolutely not included in Section 3. Under such circumstances, ingredients of the said section are not at all attracted (sic).”
While the High Court threw the case out on merits, this also brings one to the more critical issue of CCTV cameras that were supposed to have been installed in every police station across the country as per a Supreme Court directive. Quite some time back, the Supreme Court had ordered that all police stations in India must have CCTV cameras installed, and that the status of compliance was being monitored.
The order contained the following:
Installation: The cameras must be installed at all entry and exit points, lock-ups, corridors, reception areas, interrogation rooms, SHO’s room, record room, and boundary walls.
Features: The cameras must be night-vision capable and record both audio and video. The data must be stored for a minimum of one year. Hence, in this case, had the cameras been there and had they been operational, then the brothers need not have recorded the audio.
Monitoring: The cameras must be monitored from the offices of IG, SP, and SHO, as well as from a dashboard in the headquarters of Dial 112.
Purpose: The cameras are intended to prevent human rights violations, ensure oversight, and videograph crime scenes.
Compliance: The centre, states, and Union Territories must show the status of compliance with the order.
The apex court had also directed that the footage captured by these cameras must be made available to a person who complains of force being used against them while they were in custody. The recordings were supposed to have been kept for at least 12 months.
The problem here is that while this order sounds brilliant on paper, its implementation, quite like the implementation of most of Indian courts’ orders, has been tardy, to be modest.
Most police stations do not even have the basic requirements scheduled for a police station. In some frequently flood hit areas, such as some in West Bengal, the entire police station, including its records, has to be shifted to higher ground, when the flood waters come.
Under such circumstances, the “luxury” of a CCTV camera—and, without electricity, they would not have worked anyway—is the last thing on the minds of the police officers.
Such lacunae not only prevents court orders from being carried out, but also emboldens the corrupt police officers to lash out against common people and try and extort on behalf of criminals.
In this case, the issue was dragged to a court, probably because one of the brothers was a police constable himself and had some idea of the norms and procedures of a police station.
The courts’ hands are tied in many ways. This is one such glaring example.
Sometimes, the sheer incompetence of many of India’s police forces shows up in their arrogance. The lack of understanding of the law, accompanied by their desire to threaten and subdue an unsuspecting person, creates horrific stories. When arrogance accompanies these cravings, verbal and physical abuse at police stations happens. The police, answerable to their political masters, rather than to the rule of law, believe they are law unto themselves.
In a recent incident, the Bombay High Court taught the police a lesson in law, telling them to climb down from their high horses and learn a bit more of how laws are implemented in a civil world. The Court told the police that the act of recording audio in a police station would not become an offence under the stringent Official Secrets Act (OSA).
This lesson was imparted to the police by the division bench of the Court, comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Santosh Chapalgaonkar, sitting in Aurangabad. In doing so, the bench also quashed an FIR lodged against two brothers, one of whom works as a constable with the Mumbai Police. The two had been booked under the OSA for recording conversation with a police officer within the police station at Pathardi, Ahmednagar.
What had precipitated this incident and the humiliation of the police force, was in fact a case of misuse of power by the police against the aggrieved, in this case, the two brothers, Subhash and Santosh Athare.
On April 21, 2022, it was alleged by the two brothers that three persons had barged into their house, had assaulted their old mother and had even tried to outrage her modesty. The brothers had reported this to the police, but on April 26, Subhash learned that only a non-cognisable offence was lodged by the officers of the Pathardi police station. And when he sought to know from the officers, why an FIR was not registered, he was allegedly abused in filthy language.
The police were so much in cohorts with the alleged criminals that they did not stop at even accusing a person who belonged to the police force. The police did not stop there. On May 2, 2022, the police officers called Subhash to the police station and pressured him to withdraw his complaint. It was then that Subhash recorded the conversation with the police officer and him on his phone.
Subhash then lodged a complaint with the director general of police, Maharashtra, highlighting the “threats” issued to him and his brother by the officers, for filing the case. While the applicants argued that the instant FIR was lodged (by the police against them) with an ulterior motive, the state justified the FIR.
The two brothers then petitioned the High Court, seeking to quash the July 19, 2022, FIR lodged against them by the Pathardi Police for offences under the OSA.
The bench noted that the entire episode as alleged in the FIR lodged on July 19, 2022, had taken place in the police station and the police had invoked the OSA, 1923.
The bench concluded in their September 23 order: “Section 2(8) of the said Act defines what a prohibited place is. A police station is not included in the said definition. Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, deals with Penalties for spying.”
The judges also said that in Section 3, “Penalties for spying, (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State—
“(a) approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the vicinity of, or enters, any prohibited place; or
“(b) makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy; or
“(c) obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy [or which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States];
“(Then) He shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend, where the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government or in relation to any secret official code, to fourteen years and in other cases to three years.”
The bench noted: “Anything done in the police is absolutely not included in Section 3. Under such circumstances, ingredients of the said section are not at all attracted (sic).”
While the High Court threw the case out on merits, this also brings one to the more critical issue of CCTV cameras that were supposed to have been installed in every police station across the country as per a Supreme Court directive. Quite some time back, the Supreme Court had ordered that all police stations in India must have CCTV cameras installed, and that the status of compliance was being monitored.
The order contained the following:
Installation: The cameras must be installed at all entry and exit points, lock-ups, corridors, reception areas, interrogation rooms, SHO’s room, record room, and boundary walls.
Features: The cameras must be night-vision capable and record both audio and video. The data must be stored for a minimum of one year. Hence, in this case, had the cameras been there and had they been operational, then the brothers need not have recorded the audio.
Monitoring: The cameras must be monitored from the offices of IG, SP, and SHO, as well as from a dashboard in the headquarters of Dial 112.
Purpose: The cameras are intended to prevent human rights violations, ensure oversight, and videograph crime scenes.
Compliance: The centre, states, and Union Territories must show the status of compliance with the order.
The apex court had also directed that the footage captured by these cameras must be made available to a person who complains of force being used against them while they were in custody. The recordings were supposed to have been kept for at least 12 months.
The problem here is that while this order sounds brilliant on paper, its implementation, quite like the implementation of most of Indian courts’ orders, has been tardy, to be modest.
Most police stations do not even have the basic requirements scheduled for a police station. In some frequently flood hit areas, such as some in West Bengal, the entire police station, including its records, has to be shifted to higher ground, when the flood waters come.
Under such circumstances, the “luxury” of a CCTV camera—and, without electricity, they would not have worked anyway—is the last thing on the minds of the police officers.
Such lacunae not only prevents court orders from being carried out, but also emboldens the corrupt police officers to lash out against common people and try and extort on behalf of criminals.
In this case, the issue was dragged to a court, probably because one of the brothers was a police constable himself and had some idea of the norms and procedures of a police station.
The courts’ hands are tied in many ways. This is one such glaring example.