Why are people afraid of stepping into police stations?: Madras High Court

Representational image. File
| Photo Credit: M. Periasamy

Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (August 20, 2024) asked State Public Prosecutor (SPP) Hasan Mohamed Jinnah as to why people are afraid to step into police stations when they have no such hesitation in visiting the courts, hospitals or collectorates.

Presiding over a Division Bench along with Justice V. Sivagnanam, he said, the police department requires much greater reforms than merely calling itself a friend of the people. He said, the police personnel must conduct themselves properly and treat complainants with respect.

He said, true reforms in the police department would take place only on the day when the citizens do not feel any hesitation to walk into a police station. He lamented that even senior police officers had till date not obeyed court orders to remove dark sunfilms from their cars.

The judge expressed his anguish after requesting the appearance of the SPP to highlight how his Bench had been coming across numerous cases of preventive detention laws being used as an easy way out to keep individuals in prison for six to seven months without any trial or conviction.

Goondas Act

Justice Subramaniam said, the preventive detention laws must be used sparingly in cases where there are cogent materials to believe likelihood of breach of public order if a person was allowed to roam free. On the contrary, the police had been using it left, right and centre against every other individual, he added.

Giving an example, the judge said, his Bench heard a case just a few hours ago of a person having murdered another individual due to a scuffle that ensued when they were playing a cricket match. There was no other case against him, yet the police had branded him as a ‘Goonda’ and invoked the preventive detention law.

Stating that it was a crime that had occurred at the spur of a moment, the judge asked how fair it was to invoke Goondas Act and thereby curtail the personal freedom of the person even if he manages to obtain bail in the murder case. He reminded the police that preventive detention leads to very serious consequences.

The judge said that branding a person as a Goonda, even for being involved in a single criminal case, leads to stigma. Further, a person detained under the Goondas Act “is deprived of the opportunity to earn his livelihood and consequently, the family that depends upon his income is also left in a lurch,” he highlighted.

Stating that the personal liberty of an individual could not be curtailed in a “callous manner,” the judge suggested that the police department could, instead, strengthen its surveillance system and keep a check over individuals whom they suspect to be trouble makers than keep them under detention for months together.

After asking the SPP to advise the police to desist from using the preventive detention laws at the drop of a hat, the judge said, the court may have to think of granting interim bail to those detained under the preventive detention laws if it was convinced of no prima facie case of threat to public order.