Arahat Dhivare
“Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy, including yourself.” The Supreme Court reiterated the words of Adriana P. Bartow in its D.K. Basu judgment to explain the negative effect of torture on human dignity.
Somnath Suryawanshi, a 35-year-old aspiring lawyer died due to shock following multiple injuries (according to provisional post-mortem report) in Parbhani district jail on December 15, 2024. Somnath was detained along with 50 other Dalit youth for their alleged involvement in the violence that broke out in Parbhani, Maharashtra, following the desecration of a replica of the Constitution on December 10, 2024.
According to The Hindu’s article, his brother mentioned that a bail application was requested in the court after he was sent to judicial custody. “He has no role in the violence that broke out during the protest of December 11. If you look at the videos, he was seen carrying a book and recording the incident. However, he was picked up by other men from his slum,” his lawyer Pawan Jondhale told The Hindu. Somnath was booked under a total of 16 sections of the Maharashtra Police Act, and several sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including 118(1)(a person voluntarily causes hurt to someone using dangerous tools), 121(act of voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter a public servant), 126(wrongful restraint), 132(criminal force or assault against a public servant), 189(unlawful assemblies), 191(criminalizes rioting), 223(disobeying orders given by public servants), and 324(destruction to property).
Somnath Suryawanshi was booked under multiple offences, but that doesn’t provide authority to the police to murder the accused while in judicial custody. In the case of D K Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, the apex court has outlined guidelines for the police to follow while arresting and detaining people. The apex court has strictly stated that the interrogation must take place in a clearly identifiable place, and the arrestee’s relatives or friends must be informed of the location. The methods of interrogation must be consistent with the right to life, dignity, and liberty.
The apex court, in Paramveer Singh Saini case, while considering the directions issued in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal & Others(2015) 8 SCC 744, held that there was a need for further directions and directed that the state and union territory governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every police station in the respective state and/or union territory. Further, in order to ensure that no part of a police station is left uncovered, it is imperative to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at all entry and exit points, the main gate of the police station, all lock-ups, all corridors; lobby/the reception area, all verandas/outhouses, the inspector’s room, sub-inspectors room, the areas outside the lock-up room, the station hall, the front of the police station compound and outside (not inside) washrooms/toilets, the duty officer’s room, the back part of the police station, etc.
Despite all this, Somnath Suryawanshi died in prison, which raises serious concerns regarding the law and order as well as administration in the state. Somnath was merely an accused and the law of the land works on the principle of presumption of innocence.
The principle of presumption of innocence provides protection to the accused and the right to be treated equally until proven guilty, signifying Somnath was innocent in the eyes of law.
Undertaking of the adjudicatory function and killing innocent persons in custody by police officials is not only a crime but also a breach of public trust doctrine. The supreme court in the bulldozer-justice case, noted that the executive can not replace the judiciary in performing its core functions. The court also referred to its previous decision in Nilabati Behara(1993), Centre for Public interest litigation v. Union of India(2020) and Delhi airtech services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and noted that the executive officials who took law into their own hands had to be made accountable for such high handed actions.
Somnath was from the Wadar (nomadic) community, a marginalized section of the society. The observation about the treatment of Dalits and minorities by the Bombay high court, and the circumstances surrounding it, are both evident from the incident that took place in Parbhani. In 2014, in a case where a 23-year-old resident of Nalasopara died mysteriously in Thane central Jail, a division bench of justice, V M Kanade and P D Kode observing the custodial deaths remarked, “It seems to be happening only against certain persons from the minority.” Advocate Yug Chaudhari who was acting as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in that case agreed and said, “I have done my research and it shows that the cases are mostly of Muslims and Dalits.” It is a matter of shame for a progressive state like Maharashtra that a renowned court like the Bombay High Court was compelled to make such an observation.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar states in his book, Annihilation of Caste, “Religion, social status, and property are all sources of power and authority which one man has, to control the liberty of another.” Now there is room to raise a question in this Parbhani case, merely due to the people from marginalized communities challenging the authorities, did the upper caste administrative authorities carry out such brutal practices or they were getting orders to do so from the seniors?
The Indian Constitution grants freedom to every individual, providing dignity, liberty and right to life. As a result, many of the challenges faced by Dalits, minorities, Adivasis and women are addressed, and numerous rights and privileges are enshrined in the Constitution. For Dalits and minorities, the Constitution is seen as their true saviour. However, incidents like the one in Parbhani are now raising new questions about the system.
Between 2016 to 2022, India has witnessed a troubling number of custodial deaths, with a total of 11,419 cases reported across police and judicial custody including 874 cases in Maharashtra. Specifically, during the 2021–2022 period, 2307 custodial deaths were recorded in India including 183 cases in Maharashtra, underscoring the ongoing concern over the treatment of detainees in law enforcement and judicial facilities. The Ministry of Home Affairs’ report further highlights disturbing regional disparities, with some states experiencing a significant rise in such incidents. Notably, Maharashtra has seen a staggering tenfold increase in custodial deaths, pointing to systemic issues within the state’s law enforcement and judicial oversight mechanisms.
This alarming trend raises serious questions about the effectiveness of accountability structures and the extent to which detainees’ rights are protected during their time in custody. Encounters, police brutality, inadequate medical care, insufficient monitoring by judicial authorities, and custodial deaths are against the law of natural justice. The rise in such cases suggests significant human rights violations. While custodial deaths are a longstanding concern, the sharp increase in certain regions, like Maharashtra, signals deeper problems that need urgent attention.
To address this issue, the state needs to increase the number of fast track courts and bring some concrete reforms such as providing opportunities to prisoners to have interviews with judges, frequent jail visits by judges and magistrates. The state should also provide an independent monitoring agency which will monitor not only the health of prisoners but also food, safety hygiene of jails and living conditions of prisoners. Without such reforms, the risk of further abuse in custody will likely continue to undermine public trust in the justice system.
References:
- https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/acting-against-torture/article19969818.ece
- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/maharashtra/parbhani-violence-aspiring-lawyer-dies-in-judicial-custody/article68991332.ece
- https://sasnagar.punjabpolice.gov.in/dk_basu_guidelines.php#:~:text=The%20person%20under%20arrest%20must,against%20torture%20and%20degrading%20treatment.&text=1.,guidelines%20and%20take%20corrective%20action.
- https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/13346/13346_2020_33_1501_24909_Judgement_02-Dec-2020.pdf
- https://www.scobserver.in/journal/bulldozer-demolitions-remind-of-a-lawless-ruthless-state-of-affairs-declares-supreme-court-as-it-issues-pan-india-guidelines/
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-victims-of-custodial-deaths-in-maharashtra-only-from-minorities-bombay-hc-asks/articleshow/39378139.cms
- https://www.mha.gov.in/MHA1/Par2017/pdfs/par2022-pdfs/LS-22032022/3019.pdf
~~~
Arahat Dhivare is a student of law, Mumbai University.
