Source: The post Teaching a lesson cannot justify custodial violence has been created, based on the article “Justice is not about ‘teaching someone a lesson’” published in “The Hindu” on 22nd August 2025. Teaching a lesson cannot justify custodial violence.
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- Governance- criminal Justice system
Context: A Chhattisgarh High Court ruling on a custodial death said police intended “to teach a lesson.” A Dalit man died hours after a clean medical check. It legitimises brutality and weakens constitutional policing.
For detailed information Custodial Violence in India read this article here
The Case and Judicial Finding
- Troubling facts and timeline: A Dalit man, arrested for alleged public misbehaviour, was medically cleared without injuries and died in custody within hours. The postmortem recorded 26 wounds.
- Trial conviction and charges: The trial court convicted four officers of murder, recognising a fatal assault shown by the postmortem and custody.
- High Court alteration of offence: The High Court reduced the offence to culpable homicide, finding no intent to kill, only knowledge the assault could cause death.
- The “teach a lesson” remark: By noting an intent “to teach a lesson,” the court cast violence as discipline. In a judgment, such phrasing shapes how misconduct is viewed.
Deterrence Logic and its Dangers
- Not a constitutional principle: “Teaching a lesson” is not a legal standard. It reflects vigilante logic where fear replaces rights and procedures.
- Normalising torture: Treating violence as corrective zeal normalises custodial torture. Brutality appears as discipline rather than illegality.
- Emboldening and steering policy: This framing invites officers to act as enforcer and judge. Judicial language then shapes policy, making future misconduct more likely.
Caste, Identity, and the SC/ST Act
- Erased victim identity: The deterrence narrative obscures the victim’s Scheduled Caste identity. In rural India, upper-caste officers beating a Dalit detainee signals caste-coded enforcement.
- Acquittal under the Act: The trial court acquitted the prime accused under the SC/ST Act, and the High Court did not interfere, limiting accountability for caste-based harm.
- Demand for explicit proof: Requiring explicit proof of caste motive ignores structural power. Without slurs or declarations, the Act is rarely triggered.
- Consequence of a narrow lens: This narrow reading denies justice in cases the law sought to address, weakening the statute’s protection.
Precedents Versus Persistent Abuse
- Supreme Court safeguards: Judgments like D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri, State of U.P., and Munshi Singh Gautam require transparency, safeguards, and strict limits on police force.
- Disproportionate victims: Custodial deaths persist at alarming levels, disproportionately affecting Dalits, Adivasis, and the poor, despite clear judicial guidance.
- Weak enforcement and conflicted inquiries: Compliance is sporadic, and inquiries are often led by implicated institutions. This undermines accountability and enables repeat violations.
Pathways for Judicial Integrity and Reform
- Reject deterrent framing and reassert policing limits: Courts must reject deterrent justifications and reaffirm police are constitutional functionaries, not disciplinarians. Using force for public nuisance erodes dignity, proportionality, and due process.
- Apply law and strengthen oversight: The SC/ST Act should be robustly applied wherever social power is weaponised. Independent accountability and enforceable safeguards are essential.
- Guard against moral shelter: Courts must not offer moral cover to extra-legal instincts. A Constitution rooted in dignity and equality cannot coexist with “lessons” written in bruises.
Question for practise:
Discuss how framing custodial violence as “teaching a lesson” undermines constitutional policing and accountability in the Chhattisgarh case.
