HRF/82/03

 22 August 2003

Uttar Pradesh - Police Brutality Unchecked

Extrajudicial executions and custodial deaths have long been part of the Indian socio-political landscape. In the 1960s, the euphemism 'encounter killings' began to be used to describe extrajudicial killings because of the frequency with which officials would claim that the deceased had been killed in an 'encounter' with police. Calling these acts "custodial deaths" and "encounter deaths," masks the harsh reality of what happens at the ground level in Uttar Pradesh.

Police abuse of authority is so prevalent in Uttar Pradesh that the Allahabad High Court responded in outrage in a 2001 opinion:

"A large number of petitions are coming up before this court with allegations against the Police that they are behaving like bandits, thieves, rapist and petty criminals…The police are supposed to protect the people and not to rape, black mail or loot them…it is high time that the police also start behaving in a civilised manner."

The National Human Rights Commission's (NHRC) Annual Report for 2000-2001 supports the Allahabad High Court's concern, and documents striking statistics indicating that for several years Uttar Pradesh has outstripped every other state in the numbers of custodial deaths and extrajudicial executions. Since the NHRC's first report in 1993, Uttar Pradesh has dominated the list of custodial deaths and rape with a total of 940 reported cases so far. During 2000-2001, the state topped the list of fake encounter deaths with 68 cases out of the 109 reported to the NHRC from across the country.

The sheer volume of police human rights abuses has caught the attention of the local and national media. "Uttar Pradesh now has yet another feather to add to its cap of ignominy. It has the worst human rights record in the country," reported Outlook newsmagazine.

Local activists and the legal community support the findings of the national investigative organisations and the media. Sanjay Vijayvargiya, a Lucknow based human rights activist, estimates that more than six extrajudicial executions occur each day in Uttar Pradesh. According to senior high court lawyer I.B. Singh, the Lucknow bench of the
Allahabad High Court receives six to seven such complaints each day. "It's another matter that not much action is taken" he adds.

The problem of police brutality in Uttar Pradesh has a wide range of causes. The police force in Uttar Pradesh has an inordinate amount of power and discretion delegated to them by the legal system, the political climate and society in general. The internal reward system, which provides monetary incentives or promotions for carrying out extrajudicial executions, also acts as a catalyst. In addition, victims hail primarily from the disenfranchised, poverty-stricken, lower caste and illiterate sections of society, which generally lack access to the few legal remedies that actually exist. A lack of cohesion between local organisations has rendered the existing support system incapable of combating the problem. Furthermore, systemic and endemic corruption in the police and within the political and judicial agencies exacerbates the problem and ensures that such crimes go unpunished.

The state of Uttar Pradesh as well as the central government are both responsible for the failure to address custodial deaths and extrajudicial executions. The state government set up the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) in October 2002, after months of procrastination. The Commission, however, is yet to show any signs of activity.

The Indian Government has failed to ensure the adequate investigation of all complaints and reports of extrajudicial executions and custodial deaths. Importantly, there is no independent body in India that is empowered to investigate such complaints. Moreover, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India's national human rights body, has not proved effective in combating extrajudicial executions.

Entrenched problems within India's judicial system contribute to the climate of impunity that allows extrajudicial executions to occur, and court action in cases of extrajudicial executions is slow and uncertain. The Allahabad High Court (which serves only Uttar Pradesh) appears to have the largest backlog, with more than 50 percent of pending cases. At the core of the problem of judicial delay is a staggering dearth of judges at all levels in the court system. While most Western countries have 50 to 100 judges per one million people, India has only 10 to 15 judges per million people.

Many of the problems with the Uttar Pradesh police force stem from flaws in the national criminal justice system. The National Security Act (NSA), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act and the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act all contribute to the arsenal of weapons available to the state's police officers and administrative officials. The combined effect of the NSA, POTA and certain clauses in the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code override many of the protections established by the Indian Constitution, and in other sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. The Protection of Human Rights Act establishing the NHRC does not contain enough force to combat the dangerous provisions in the national security and anti-terrorism measures so effectively enacted, and the result is more human rights violations and police brutality. In addition, the NHRC's usefulness has been neutralised by the failure of the government to respond to, and implement, the NHRC's recommendations.

Indian law, through the doctrines of sovereign and official immunity, protects officials who commit human rights violations, and under the Code of Criminal Procedure the sanction of the Central or State Government is required to prosecute police officers.

International human rights law prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life under any circumstances. Having ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which enshrines the right to life, in 1979, India is obliged not only to respect the right to life in principle, but also to take effective measures to ensure that extrajudicial executions do not occur in practice. Although the right to life is enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the prevalence of extrajudicial executions in India demonstrates that the Government has failed to take effective measures to ensure that the right to life is respected in practice. As the state with the greatest incidence of human rights abuses reported and the highest cases of police brutality, Uttar Pradesh contributes to India's inability to uphold its international obligations.

In terms of the response of the international community, reports have been issued by human rights groups such as Amnesty International, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, but these have had little effect on practices at the local level. Though several NGOs, as well as individual activists, have focused on the problem of custodial deaths and extrajudicial executions in Uttar Pradesh, for the most part NGO activity has been hindered by a disconnect between local organisations themselves, and between local organisations and those at the national level. Furthermore, the Uttar Pradesh government largely ignores the presence of local human rights activists.

The crisis of custodial deaths and extrajudicial executions in Uttar Pradesh is a problem of such enormous proportions that a systematic and thorough intervention is required. The Government of India and the state of Uttar Pradesh must demonstrate a strong and unyielding commitment to bring an end to this extreme police brutality, by taking legislative and other measures that give effect to the right to life. India's Ministry of Home Affairs stated that "India's commitment to human rights is demonstrated not only by the strength of its institutional framework, which has developed over the years, but also by its commitment to international conventions/resolutions and treaties dealing with different aspects of human rights." If these words are to be believed, concrete steps that will produce substantial results must be taken immediately.

About SAHRDC / Action Alerts / Human Rights Features / Publications /  Online Resource Centre / Home