The conviction of nine policemen in the Sathankulam custodial death case is a rare instance of justice being done in a case of police murder. The fact that it took six years to bring the killers of shopkeepers P Jayaraj and his son J Bennicks to justice highlights the obstacles such cases face in our legal system. Even then, it is pertinent to remember that this verdict has been awarded in the lower courts, which often rule to please the popular mood and are frequently overruled higher up due to infirmities, often deliberately introduced, in the investigation.
Most cases of custodial torture or murder do not, unfortunately, dominate our headlines for long. However, the brutality inflicted by the Sathankulam police upon Jayaraj and his son was such that a public outcry was triggered and subsequently drew the suo motu attention of the Madras High Court. Few custodial cases get such attention and most errant officers go scot-free.
The father-son duo was detained on June 19, 2020 for keeping their shop open for 15 minutes beyond the COVID-19 curfew time. In detention, they were subjected to inhuman torture. After realising that their injuries could be fatal, the police personnel furtively handed over the detainees to judicial custody. However, both succumbed to injuries in hospital.
In the face of public pressure, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court took cognisance of the case and subsequently it was handed over to the CBI. The investigation came up against non-cooperation and foot-dragging by the accused police officers. A judicial officer who visited the police station was intimidated and evidence was denied. The key breakthrough came from a woman head constable who courageously testified that the victims were indeed beaten throughout the night of detention.
This is familiar trajectory for most cases of custodial torture and murder. Nationwide, it is routine for the police to subject detainees to physical abuse and deny them legal assistance. A plethora of flaws exist in the system that enable custodial excess and aid errant officers in covering up. Equally callous is the remand culture in which magistrates sign detention orders without verifying the physical condition of the accused, and medical officers feel pressured to overlook obvious signs of torture.
While justice in individual cases is welcome, what we need is serious implementation of systemic reforms. But, there is resistance from within the police. That is because there is an ambience of tolerance for torture, which the police see a legitimate instrument of investigation. Recommendations by several commissions to enact a specific law against torture and make it a non-bailable offence have never been implemented. There is stubborn resistance to separating the investigative and law and order functions of the police and to set up an agency to monitor detention practices.
So, at the operational level, police methods continue to include medieval practices and cover-up tactics. The Sathankulam case for instance was hampered by the absence of any video footage of the detention. Apparently, the surveillance data at the station is overwritten each new day. This is a classic ruse employed by the local police to keep their excesses hidden from scrutiny.
Until we view the problem systemically, Sathankulam will remain an exceptional case of justice being done while the rot within remains.