Introduction
Fundamentally, the courts have a responsibility to protect individual liberty and uphold constitutional standards set as limits on the criminal justice system, not mere guidelines for administrative convenience or public perception. One important part of this judicial scrutiny is reviewing practices by police that are more intent on being seen to be doing something than actually achieving justice. Establishing a constitutional protection window for police discretion and public right to know when police have an arrest warrant, conflating those with just cause and probable cause standards as prerequisites to any use of a civil or criminal process restraints, creates a framework requiring judicial intervention where the trust in an agent raises red flags. Courts should be wary of turning arrests into public relations fests rather than tools of law enforcement informed by evidence and the requirements of legitimate legal process.
Background
Recent observations of the Supreme Court have brought to the fore the question of colonial-era policing mentality, that arrests are made not for justice but to give an impression of quick action by police. The Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed the grave concern that outdated colonial-era policing practices continue to thrive where arrests are made essentially for public consumption and by media salacity, which is scarcely based on evidence or legal right. The pattern is a disturbing affirmation of the colonial police practice serving the state rather than human rights, and continues the brutal legacy from British colonial administration. The subject caught hold of public imagination when the Supreme Court observed that a large number of arrests are not made because they are necessary for investigations or to prevent the accused from tampering with prosecution evidence, but based on power play and showmanship. Such a system, which sees detention as the primary solution rather than a measure of last resort, undermines the principle that liberty is the norm and only in exceptional circumstances should be taken away. The Court found that these practices violate not only individual rights but also public faith in the administration of justice, as investigating based on perception management first and evidence gathering later helps no one.
Key Points
- Constitutional Protection of Personal Liberty: The chief principle manifested in the Court’s solicitude is that basic constitutional freedoms are “NOT to be sacrificed or abridged merely because a person chooses (or needs) to do an act as part of an association, rather than an isolated individual.” The power of arrest should be exercised with restraint and in compliance with legal provisions so as not to appear that the police are efficient. This principle ensures that individual freedom remains protected against arbitrary state action.
- Arrest must be last option not the first: It was, inter alia, observed by the court that arrest must be in the last resort and could not always be one of the general rules for every offence or a panacea for every malady and is to be resorted only when it becomes absolutely necessary to prevent accused running away from police officer, tampering with evidence or indulging in similar activities. A colonial mentality of arrest, as the primary investigative tool, is in violation of this core fundamental principle and, in combination with an authoritarian attitude that holds state power above individual rights.
- Evidence not Optics-Based Policing: The court emphasised that the policing activity has to be evidence-based and necessary in law, as opposed to being undertaken merely with an eyewash desire to show some urgency of action before the public or media. But the efficacy of police should be based on evidence like investigation quality, the right protection and actual crime prevention, rather than just in a general sense, making arrests and detaining.
- Judicial review of police discretion: The court has quickly realised that it holds the cards in scrutinising whether grounds to arrest must be satisfied by officers. That means determining whether arrests are actually for genuine law enforcement purposes or just the appearance of one to appease the public.
- Protection Against Harassment Through Process: The Appellate Courts admit that processes such as Arrest and detention might be abused, basically against a person who is likely to be exonerated or where even charges are false. This redefinition of process abuse represents a violation of the basic legal principles of innocence until proven guilty and that punishment is inflicted only following lawful conviction.
- Modernising How We Police: Court-mandated lasting overhaul of colonial-era policing to cutting-edge modern law enforcement based on constitutional values, lawful investigation culture, and public service approach instead of dominance and media spectacle.
Recent Developments
In the notable case of Suryakant Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court has issued stern comments on the persistent practice of colonial policing paradigms in modern-day India. The Court noted how countless arrests are made for the sake of creating the illusion of swift police action, irrespective of whether the individual has committed an offence. The Court has acknowledged the urgent need for police supervision and has struck down provisions that allow the enforcement agencies to function without checks.
The Supreme Court comment was symptomatic of a widespread judicial acknowledgement that laws enforced by untrained police inherited from a colonial past are violating the principles of the constitution and infringing upon individual fundamental rights. According to the court, it seems that the working of the present investigating authorities is only to arrest and prosecute for fun, frolic or merry making and not to investigate with concrete evidence in accordance with the law. This criticism goes beyond specific scenarios, and touches on broader concerns of state police training, institutional culture and accountability.
The court’s action suggests a more widespread judicial dedication to police reform aimed at restoring law enforcement in compliance with constitutional values rather than propelling authoritarian legacies. The ruling reinforces what broad definitions of justice have long understood, that true justice involves police work, focused on evidence collecting, rights protections and community safety services more than it does creating public drama through unnecessary arrests.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s restraining of colonial-era policing practices enhances law enforcement while safeguarding individual liberty from government overreach. Such actions have been taken in the spirit of the Constitution and democracy, which are meant to counter policing for show. The excess of arresting for public relations, and in the court’s view, rights-based enforcement is controlled through the judiciary’s policing functions, such as scrutiny and judicial review. By prohibiting arrest for ‘optics’ purposes, the court strengthens the cornerstone of personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and constitutionally prohibited surplus action by the state. This court ruling strengthens the framework of responsive, constitutional policing that arms the state with law enforcement powers but respects individual rights.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: YANA S JACOB
