Editorial Desk :
The Supreme Court in the epoch making judgement on arbitrary arrest and detention on suspicion and torture on remand under Section 54 of CrPC on Thursday which is now used to harass innocent people has discarded it and asked the respective authorities to follow the new guidelines. It has also asked lower judiciary to use new guidelines when police will produce arrestees before courts for detention and remand.
The judgement showed SC’s utter disapproval to how police are misusing the criminal codes asking them to earn respect of the people by protecting their rights. Denying citizens’ rights enshrined in the Constitution is surely disrespect to the country’s independence, the judgement further said.
Police excesses were subject to higher judiciary’s scrutiny but not so effectively. As constitutionally being protector of individual’s fundamental rights the accountability of the courts needs to be asserted.
The help from the SC was sought to rein in police excesses back in 1998 by a group of human rights organizations and individuals after the tragic death of a University student in police custody.
The Appellate Division delivered the verdict in May upholding a previous High Court judgement against law enforcers’ arbitrary use of powers. The HC verdict on April 7, 2003 had asked the government to amend some provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1898.
But the BNP government appealed against the verdict and later on the Awami League government did the same. But the SC dismissed the appeal. There is no secret of the fact that both were misusing police on political motive and none was ready to give the people the constitutional protection from police excesses.
The full verdict of the SC this time disapproved such police excesses while approving the earlier judgement with a 19-point detailed guidelines for police, magistrates and judges how to interpret the Section 54 and associated clauses dealing with arrests and processing of cases in lower courts.
The court has asked police to prepare record of arrests with signature of the arrestees. Moreover it said police must produce their identity during arrest if so demanded by the arrestee and nearer relatives must be informed of the arrest within 12 hours. Arrestees should also be allowed to consult a lawyer and meet relatives.
The lower courts on the other hand should not blindly allow police to detain the arrestees or put them on remand as it is widely taking place on political motive. The SC order says the court should release an arrestee if police demand detention without a copy of arrest record and the forwarding says arrest has been made for preventive detention.
It can’t also issue order for shown arrest of a detained person in a new case without a copy of the case. Moreover, no order for detention should be issued if the arrest is made for preventive detention.
In most cases the police officers cannot complete the investigation within the stipulated period sanctioned by law and normally they take years together, the SC observed.
The detention or remand of an accused person beyond 15 days is not only an exercise of power not sanctioned by the law but also violative of Article 32 of the Constitution dealing with protection of a person’s right to life and liberty, it noted.
The court has rightly said Section 54 is a nefarious provision allowing police to arrest anyone on mere suspicion and whims. Information of being involved in a cognizable case is not enough. Under several other sections of the criminal law, arrestees are placed on remand and detained in violation of their fundamental rights. It can’t be done anymore from now.
The SC has asked police to use power judiciously, curtailing police’s authority to arrest anyone applying this section for detaining him under Special Powers Act. Preventative detention is the imprisonment of a person with the aim of preventing him from committing further offences without being sure he is going to do anything unlawful.
The SC said, “We have reasons to believe it (Police) has forgotten its core value that it is accountable to the community it serves and at the same time the prevention of crime is its prime operational priority.”
The court’s advice to police that they must earn public respect which will bring down crime is what the police must work for. The court’s comment is far-reaching when it said, “If we cannot maintain the fundamental rights of the citizens …. and allow police officers [to] use abusive power it will be difficult to establish constitutional law and the rule of law at any point of time.”
The court said the CrPC was promulgated by the British colonial ruler to consolidate their power through the exercise of abusive powers by the police. There was no Constitution at the time and the fundamental rights of a citizen were a far cry.
“After driving out two colonial powers …. we cannot detain and prosecute an offender with a draconian law,”. The objective of the CrPC for which it was implemented then does not exist now. The present procedures for holding trials by magistrates and judges are inadequate and conflicting with constitutional law.
Sections 54 and 167 as well as three chapters of the CrPC dealing with the process for producing documents and persons wrongfully confined, the trial of such cases by magistrates and summary trials are inconsistent with the Constitution and the judgement in the Masder Hossain Case.
In the judgement it appears that their Lordships have observed about the need of changing the present Code of Criminal Procedure. We are not sure that to happen as our political leadership has very little time to make changes for securing the people’s rights.
Even under the present laws the courts are constitutionally empowered sufficiently to save our people from abuse of police power at the behest of the politics. It is for the courts to tell the police that they are bound to respect the Constitution and must not feel free to trample on the rights of the individuals life and liberty.
The Constitution has trusted the courts and not the government to protect the people’s rights and liberty. The police cannot violate the Constitution to be politically subservient.
Not long ago the IG of Police spoke boldly to say that they are not colonial police, they are the people’s police.
The Supreme Court has offered the nation the bold hope of protecting their rights constitutionally as against the abuse of police excesses.
The independence of the judiciary has been ensured, their Lordships of the Supreme Court provided the backbone of courage by this judgement for the courts to exercise that independence. The police have no right to take life. Only the courts can pass death sentence after one has been found guilty of a serious crime.
Refusing bail means punishment by police. Facilitating bail is the best way of protecting the people from the abuse of false cases. Not only the laws have to be changed the attitude of the courts has to be changed also. Rights must be given more importance than police power.
The Supreme Court in the epoch making judgement on arbitrary arrest and detention on suspicion and torture on remand under Section 54 of CrPC on Thursday which is now used to harass innocent people has discarded it and asked the respective authorities to follow the new guidelines. It has also asked lower judiciary to use new guidelines when police will produce arrestees before courts for detention and remand.
The judgement showed SC’s utter disapproval to how police are misusing the criminal codes asking them to earn respect of the people by protecting their rights. Denying citizens’ rights enshrined in the Constitution is surely disrespect to the country’s independence, the judgement further said.
Police excesses were subject to higher judiciary’s scrutiny but not so effectively. As constitutionally being protector of individual’s fundamental rights the accountability of the courts needs to be asserted.
The help from the SC was sought to rein in police excesses back in 1998 by a group of human rights organizations and individuals after the tragic death of a University student in police custody.
The Appellate Division delivered the verdict in May upholding a previous High Court judgement against law enforcers’ arbitrary use of powers. The HC verdict on April 7, 2003 had asked the government to amend some provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1898.
But the BNP government appealed against the verdict and later on the Awami League government did the same. But the SC dismissed the appeal. There is no secret of the fact that both were misusing police on political motive and none was ready to give the people the constitutional protection from police excesses.
The full verdict of the SC this time disapproved such police excesses while approving the earlier judgement with a 19-point detailed guidelines for police, magistrates and judges how to interpret the Section 54 and associated clauses dealing with arrests and processing of cases in lower courts.
The court has asked police to prepare record of arrests with signature of the arrestees. Moreover it said police must produce their identity during arrest if so demanded by the arrestee and nearer relatives must be informed of the arrest within 12 hours. Arrestees should also be allowed to consult a lawyer and meet relatives.
The lower courts on the other hand should not blindly allow police to detain the arrestees or put them on remand as it is widely taking place on political motive. The SC order says the court should release an arrestee if police demand detention without a copy of arrest record and the forwarding says arrest has been made for preventive detention.
It can’t also issue order for shown arrest of a detained person in a new case without a copy of the case. Moreover, no order for detention should be issued if the arrest is made for preventive detention.
In most cases the police officers cannot complete the investigation within the stipulated period sanctioned by law and normally they take years together, the SC observed.
The detention or remand of an accused person beyond 15 days is not only an exercise of power not sanctioned by the law but also violative of Article 32 of the Constitution dealing with protection of a person’s right to life and liberty, it noted.
The court has rightly said Section 54 is a nefarious provision allowing police to arrest anyone on mere suspicion and whims. Information of being involved in a cognizable case is not enough. Under several other sections of the criminal law, arrestees are placed on remand and detained in violation of their fundamental rights. It can’t be done anymore from now.
The SC has asked police to use power judiciously, curtailing police’s authority to arrest anyone applying this section for detaining him under Special Powers Act. Preventative detention is the imprisonment of a person with the aim of preventing him from committing further offences without being sure he is going to do anything unlawful.
The SC said, “We have reasons to believe it (Police) has forgotten its core value that it is accountable to the community it serves and at the same time the prevention of crime is its prime operational priority.”
The court’s advice to police that they must earn public respect which will bring down crime is what the police must work for. The court’s comment is far-reaching when it said, “If we cannot maintain the fundamental rights of the citizens …. and allow police officers [to] use abusive power it will be difficult to establish constitutional law and the rule of law at any point of time.”
The court said the CrPC was promulgated by the British colonial ruler to consolidate their power through the exercise of abusive powers by the police. There was no Constitution at the time and the fundamental rights of a citizen were a far cry.
“After driving out two colonial powers …. we cannot detain and prosecute an offender with a draconian law,”. The objective of the CrPC for which it was implemented then does not exist now. The present procedures for holding trials by magistrates and judges are inadequate and conflicting with constitutional law.
Sections 54 and 167 as well as three chapters of the CrPC dealing with the process for producing documents and persons wrongfully confined, the trial of such cases by magistrates and summary trials are inconsistent with the Constitution and the judgement in the Masder Hossain Case.
In the judgement it appears that their Lordships have observed about the need of changing the present Code of Criminal Procedure. We are not sure that to happen as our political leadership has very little time to make changes for securing the people’s rights.
Even under the present laws the courts are constitutionally empowered sufficiently to save our people from abuse of police power at the behest of the politics. It is for the courts to tell the police that they are bound to respect the Constitution and must not feel free to trample on the rights of the individuals life and liberty.
The Constitution has trusted the courts and not the government to protect the people’s rights and liberty. The police cannot violate the Constitution to be politically subservient.
Not long ago the IG of Police spoke boldly to say that they are not colonial police, they are the people’s police.
The Supreme Court has offered the nation the bold hope of protecting their rights constitutionally as against the abuse of police excesses.
The independence of the judiciary has been ensured, their Lordships of the Supreme Court provided the backbone of courage by this judgement for the courts to exercise that independence. The police have no right to take life. Only the courts can pass death sentence after one has been found guilty of a serious crime.
Refusing bail means punishment by police. Facilitating bail is the best way of protecting the people from the abuse of false cases. Not only the laws have to be changed the attitude of the courts has to be changed also. Rights must be given more importance than police power.
