The horrors of police custody in ethnically divided Manipur

One of the worst forms of death in a civilized society is custodial death. For it seems to defeat the very purpose of why a person is imprisoned in the first place. 

More than three months after the incident and over two weeks since the video of two Kuki-Zomi women sexually assaulted in Manipur leaked, the Central Bureau of Investigation has taken over the probe in this case. 

The victims have testified to the indifferent attitude of the police who handed over the victims along with other members of their village, from their custody to the mob and chose to witness the scene merely as spectators. However, one is compelled to question if investigations will be conducted in the absence of evidentiary video clips that contain incriminating acts of human brutality.
 
In another instance, HanglalmuanVaiphei, 22, was arrested from his residence in Zomi Bethel Veng in Churachandpur district on 30th April 2023. The crime leading to his arrest was a post he uploaded on Facebook which allegedly appeared to be against the interest of the state government.  

The arrest warrant was issued by the Imphal police station. Numerous attempts were made by the family to find the whereabouts of their son but no information was provided by the Police. On 5th May, the parents were informed that Hanglalmuan had died in a mob attack on 3rd May on the way to Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa from the police station where he was last lodged. 

Also Read: Manipur naked parade: Left to die in paddy field, how two women ran for life and justice

An FIR was registered on 25th May. No action has been initiated to date to investigate the death of the victim who was in the custody of the Manipur police in Imphal from the day of his arrest. So much for the right to freedom of speech in the world’s largest democracy.
 
Custodial torture is an unambiguous confession of the failure of the police in regarding human rights in particular those arrested persons against whom chargesheet is yet to be filed nor are custodial deaths uncommon in India. The Apex Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997), ruled that custodial death is undoubtedly a sheer transgression mocking the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under 21 of the Constitution. 

Custodial death is an unnatural death, the Judicial Magistrate under 176 CrPc is required to conduct magisterial enquiry and in all such cases compensation are provided to the victims. The Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (2006) case, issued directions for setting up a ‘Police Complaints Authority’ at the district, state and national levels. However, successive Union or state governments have failed in following these suggestions. In fact, early this year in February, the Home ministry had informed the Rajya Sabha that the state of Gujarat bears the highest instances of custodial deaths at 80 in the last five years. Such incidents point starkly to the indifferent attitude and highhandedness of the police in undermining the laws.
 
Arrest can be an infringement of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees right to life and personal liberty, hence due adherence to the procedure established by law must be followed. The year 2005 made significant amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedural (CrPC) which prominently recognised the rights of arrested persons which is mandatory criteria in the criminal justice system that ought to be fair and unbiased. 

To list a few of such rights are that, every arrested person has the right to be informed on the grounds of arrest, nominate a person to be informed of the arrest, have a legal representation and be informed about the right to apply for bail where applicable. One must be mindful of the underlying objective of arrest under the CrPC. Key reasons why arrests are generally made is to ensure that the accused person does not tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, prevent the accused from absconding and most importantly towards prudent-time bound investigation and filing of chargesheet on the alleged commission of crime. In case of cognizable offences, the police is permitted to make an arrest without a warrant - this must cautiously be read and not interpreted as “immediate arrest.” Due diligence must be exercised by the police before any person is arrested. 

The law clearly states that an arrested person should not be detained beyond 24 hours without a special order by the Magistrate’s court u/s 167 CrPC but not unless the accused is produced before him. This requirement for the physical presence before the magistrate may be interpreted to ensure the arrested person is not subjected to custodial torture which is further reiterated in section 55A CrPC imposing a mandatory obligation on the officer in charge of the matter to ensure right to health and safety of the arrested person in his custody. This duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exceptions.
 
With regard to international safeguards against police torture, the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), 1984, India is among countries like Brunei, the Bahamas and Sudan that have not ratified the convention. However, to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights in India, the Human Rights Commissions were established at the National and State level, as stipulated by The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993. 
 
Reverting to the case of Hanglalmuan it offers a sharp distinction of the police’s action to arrest an innocent as against the numerous FIRs running into thousands since mid-May in the state with allegations on crimes of the most heinous nature. The Chief Minister himself making public remarks and justifying the violence under the guise of war on “narco-terrorists” and “illegal migrants” to cite a few, reflects the police complicity and partisan attitude which renders it impossible to engage in any trust-building mechanism especially for the family of such victims. Given the genocidal nature of the mayhem in Manipur, it is beyond obvious that the state police has totally failed in upholding the oath of allegiance to the rule of law. 

The question of restoration of life for the deceased is impossible. The corpse if at all there is, must be handed over to his family to enable a dignified burial to say the least. Two other glaring incidents relate to the death of DallamthangSuntak and LalremruotPulamte, witnesses account that both these persons had sought protection in the Moirang police station on their way from Imphal to Churachandpur in the late evening on 3rd May. Eventually, they were lynched by the mob or were they also handed over to the mob by the Police (like they did to the women victims of the video), it is hard to know the truth. 

In the case of Hanglalmuan, there is no report of injuries suffered by any of the police personnel accompanying the accused in their custody who were supposedly attacked by the mob resulting in the death of the victim while the rest escaped unhurt!

The existence of video clips capturing a series of events leading to the death of victims subjected to heinous crimes within the four walls of police custody is highly improbable. It is well within the powers of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to seek reports from the state police or the CBI on their investigation. 

These incidents listed above are not recent happenings, they occurred in the initial days of the violence, most importantly these are few examples of the many cases of atrocities committed within and by the state. Even if one counterargues it to be too little too late, nonetheless, the NHRC must initiate a suo-moto inquiry into these incidents of blatant human rights violations on minorities. This also brings to light the Gujarat riots in 2002 wherein the Commission had on its own motion approached the apex Court on behalf of the victims. This of course, sets a noteworthy precedent of its active role in preventing the abetment of violation of human rights and negligence of public servant (s) to prevent such violation.
 
In this context that the highest regard is placed on the NHRC to ensure that justice should not only be done but seen to be done.
 

The author Dr. Mercy K Khaute Guite teaches at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. Her areas of interest are in the field of public laws on the intersection of gender and human rights, customary laws and administration of tribal areas with the framework of legal pluralism under the Constitution of India.