Recent developments within the Indian legal system, particularly the introduction of Section 172 in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), have sparked discussions surrounding the extent of police powers and the safeguards in place to prevent potential abuses.

When comparing the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Section 172 of BNSS assumes greater significance as it delineates the supreme powers granted to the police. Specifically, it empowers police officers to detain individuals who refuse to comply with directions given by the police officer, providing a mechanism for arrest without the need for a warrant or extensive justification.

While such provisions may serve to enhance law enforcement capabilities and streamline response procedures, they also raise significant concerns regarding the potential for misuse of power and violations of civil liberties.

The broad discretion afforded to police officers under Section 172 could potentially lead to instances of arbitrary detention, wrongful arrests, and abuses of authority.”, by Kumar S Ratan

Furthermore, the lack of explicit guidelines or checks and balances within Section 172 leaves room for ambiguity and interpretation, further exacerbating the risk of misuse. Without clear parameters defining the circumstances under which detention is justified and ensuring accountability for police actions, there is a heightened risk of infringements upon individuals’ fundamental rights.

One of the primary concerns stemming from Section 172 is the erosion of due process rights and the presumption of innocence. By granting police officers the authority to detain individuals without sufficient cause or oversight, there is a real danger of undermining the principles of fairness and justice within the legal system.

Moreover, the potential for abuse of power under Section 172 highlights broader issues surrounding police accountability and transparency. In instances where individuals are wrongfully detained or subjected to undue harassment, the lack of effective recourse mechanisms further compounds the injustice faced by victims.

In light of these concerns, it is imperative for policymakers and stakeholders to engage in a robust dialogue surrounding the implications of Section 172 and similar provisions within the legal framework. Efforts should be made to strike a balance between empowering law enforcement to maintain public safety and safeguarding the rights and freedoms of individuals.

This may entail the implementation of stringent oversight mechanisms, enhanced training programs for law enforcement personnel, and greater transparency in police operations. Additionally, avenues for legal recourse and redress must be strengthened to ensure accountability for abuses of authority and violations of civil liberties.

Ultimately, the effective implementation of Section 172 and similar provisions hinges on the commitment of all stakeholders to upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and respect for human rights. By fostering a culture of accountability and transparency within law enforcement agencies, we can work towards building a safer and more just society for all.

It is reported that the duo from Sathankulam allegedly died in police custody after they beaten by police officers. The act of police was just for opening the shop in lockdown beyond the time limit in Tamilnadu.

If believing on social media, Barkha Dutt interview with Radio jock is spreading, which states that multiple time duo’s cloths soaked with blood were exchanged. Believe on other users, they claiming that, their inner parts was hit by sticks and they were kept in a place naked, away from CCTV.

The world is witnessing, how the Indian police is acting in lockdown. Several videos were seen on social media of police harassment during the lockdown, in which they assaulted men and committed various acts of human rights violations. It looks that “police officers has become the King while citizens has become their slave”.

We strongly urge the Tamil Nadu government to book all the police officials at the station for father-son death in police custody. Lessons should be given to such culprit in the system so that others do not take such unfair and inappropriate steps, which is either violation of human rights of it become matter of life and death of any citizens.

Now the family has been destroyed, think about the family that suddenly they have lost “Karta” of the home, and they will never forget the pain the father-son duo has faced from 19 June till 23 June, Tuesday.

We also demand from the government to divide the state police, as the state police has too much power so that a police officer can do arresting, crime-scene recreation, investigation, chargesheet, reporting the incident in knowledge of court etc. This means that a police officer has all the power, and in such a situation it becomes easier for the officers to misuse their power.

The duo death is just not the murder of two lives, but this is murder of our constitution, and being a responsible citizen, we cannot let anyone play with our Nation and the Constitution.

The other perspective cannot be denied that, the person who is doing investigation has to report in court, has to visit crime scene, patrolling, arresting and even the documentation.

Due to this the investigation officer are over burdened of their work and responsibilities, they are putting less focus on learning. So this will not be wrong to state that, our officers must be trained enough to deal with the family dispute in a friendly manner.

To deal with the misuse of the process of issuing notice to the accuse, Delhi High Court issued guidelines in Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 41A in the matter of “Amandeep Singh Johar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr“. In the said matter Acting Chief Justice of Delhi Gita Mittal has played a very strong stand against the misuse.

There are many states where the CrPC-41A is being misused and such reform is needed Nation wide.

So based on above argument and facts, there is a need of Split in Roles and Responsibility of the Investigation agencies.