NEWS  Growing instances of judicial interference in an investigation are not only undesirable but also not sanctioned by law.

CONTEXT

• Recently there have been growing instances of subordinate judicial officers, and even High Courts sometimes, directing the investigating officer to effect the arrest of a particular individual who has come to adverse notice as a suspect in the commission of a crime.
• Hence, the highest court of the land has intervened in the matter.

BACKGROUND

• Recently, the Supreme Court of India has observed that- the courts have no authority to direct an investigating officer to in turn direct the arrest of any particular individual connected with a crime.
• But contrary to this verdict, certain cases justify further curbs on the police authority to investigate an established crime.
• Examples of such cases are:
• Horrific murder of a citizen, George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in the United States.
• June 2020 case in Sattankulam, Tamil Nadu, where a 58-year-old father and his 31-year-old son died, subject to police brutality.

CONCERNS

• There are many instances of courts bullying police officers, regarding the arrests made in relation to a crime.
• The bedrock of English jurisprudence that we have adopted is based on the principle that “accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.”
• Thus, direction to the police with regard to arrests during a criminal investigation is harmful to police morale and threatens ethics of criminal justice.
•  Such directions indicating lack of faith in police ability and integrity can make grass-root level policemen even more arbitrary than now.
  • It could also force them into carrying out questionable actions that will cast defamation on an officer’s ability to think for himself.

UNNECESSITY OF JUDICIAL DIRECTIONS

• Court interference in the day-to-day investigation is not only undesirable but is also not sanctioned by law.
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) vests sufficient discretion in the investigating officer to take such decisions as arrests and searches, and even the dropping of further action after registering a first information report.
• Courts should remember that the police are a well-established hierarchy that is obligated to ensure objectivity during a criminal investigation.
  • Every investigation is supervised by at least two immediate senior officers, depending on the importance of the case.
  • Hence, it is their duty to ensure that every investigation is handled lawfully and impartially.

SAFEGUARDS AGAINST POLICE MISCONDUCT

• There already exists safeguard against any kind of police misconduct.
• It is mandatory that every police station in the land should register a complaint under the relevant sections of a statute the moment a cognisable offence is made out in the complaint
• The CrPC makes it obligatory for the investigating officer to write a diary that details the action taken every day following registration.
  • Hence, in case of doubt, the competent court, which already has a copy of the first information report, can demand to see the case diary and can question an investigating officer.
  • But directing an investigating officer to go ahead with an arrest even before he has scrutinised the evidence collected is unsustainable in law.

WAY FORWARD

• Except for the Supreme Court, the lesser courts shall not give directions in the matter of arrests and searches.
• Only when supervisory officers fail in their duty, they deserve to be pulled up by courts. But not before they are found guilty of indifference or malfeasance.

Reference:

1. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/interference-an-investigating-officer-can-do-without/article35352240.ece