Showcased in Delhi: Misuse of state’s strongarm

Why in the News

Citizen protests in Delhi against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls met a police clampdown in early October: thousands were detained, journalists manhandled, Metro gates shut and the internet suspended. The Supreme Court has issued contempt notices to the Union Home Secretary and the Delhi Police Commissioner, but the response leaves police conduct towards citizens unaddressed.

What is the contempt case, and why does the apology fall short?

1. What it is: A contempt notice asks an official to explain why the court should not punish them for disobeying its orders, like an employer’s show cause notice before disciplinary action. They concern its October 9 directions on Metro gates and related curbs.
2. The apology: On October 15 the Commissioner tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” for the Metro and internet restrictions.
3. Apology without admission: The Solicitor General clarified that such wording is a standard template in contempt replies, not an admission of disobedience.
4. The takeaway: An apology paired with a denial leaves the police’s use of force and detention powers against protesters and journalists unexamined.

Why are complaints against the police not becoming cases?

1. Harassment on record: Police recorded that three women journalists reported sexual harassment by officers at the October 3 protest, yet no First Information Report (FIR), the record that starts an investigation, was registered by mid-October.
2. Counter case: Instead, an FIR under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was filed against one of the journalists on an officer’s complaint.
3. Legal duty unmet: The law requires police to register a cognisable offence (one police can act on without a warrant) when a woman reports sexual harassment. The Court has called the allegations serious.
4. Narrative over law: Complaints against officers never become cases, because the force shapes the public account to suit political compulsions.

How do vigilantes erode the state’s monopoly on force?

1. Parallel enforcers: Videos show saffron clad men threatening and assaulting protesters and journalists, including women, as police stood nearby. The Hindu Raksha Dal chief posted that they were his workers.
2. Arrest and bail: Police arrested four after a public outcry; all got bail without police opposition.
3. Unequal enforcement: Police strictly applied detention law to protesters. Vigilantes moved freely and boasted they would not be detained.
4. Privatised force: A modern state must keep the monopoly on legitimate violence (only the state may lawfully use force). Tolerating vigilantes privatises it selectively, with grave internal security implications.

Challenges

1. Political control: Delhi Police reports to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, so its handling of protests against the government invites doubt.
2. FIR refusal: Police refuse to register complaints against their own officers. This defies Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013), the ruling on mandatory FIR registration.
3. Narrow remedy: Contempt tests obedience of a court order, not the treatment of citizens, so a template apology can close it.

Way Forward

1. Register the complaints: Record the journalists’ complaints as FIRs and investigate the named officers.
2. Vigilantes out of policing: Keep private groups away from protests and apply the Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) guidelines against mob violence.
3. Independent probe: Move complaints against officers to a court monitored investigation team.

Conclusion

The contempt case has drawn an apology for curbs on movement and communication, not for how police treated protesters and journalists or tolerated vigilantes. Whether the Supreme Court widens its scrutiny from obedience of its orders to the harassment complaints is what to watch.

Police reforms in India

1. State subject: Police falls under Entry 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, and many forces still run under the colonial Police Act, 1861.
2. Prakash Singh directions: Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) ordered a State Security Commission against political interference and Police Complaints Authorities to inquire into officers’ misconduct.
3. Diluted compliance: The Justice K.T. Thomas Committee (2010) found most States’ new police laws had diluted these directions.

Back2Basics: Contempt of court

1. Constitutional power: Article 129 makes the Supreme Court a court of record (its records are binding evidence) with power to punish contempt of itself. Article 215 gives High Courts the same power.
2. The law: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, passed on the H.N. Sanyal Committee report, separates civil contempt (wilful disobedience of a court order) from criminal contempt (scandalising the court or obstructing justice).
3. Punishment: Up to six months’ simple imprisonment, a fine up to ₹2,000, or both; a bona fide apology can lead the court to remit it.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2022] Consider the following statements : 1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed. 2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves. 3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt. 4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?4 (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1, 2 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 3 only ANSWER: (b)”