I recently came across an interesting case that, while not recent, sheds light on the times shortly after India gained independence. This is the 1949 Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Rex vs Ram Dayal. The facts of this case are both amusing and tragic, as it shows the colonial influence on India’s civil services and police system. In 1949, India was just emerging from British rule but was still grappling with the remnants of colonial laws and practices. The police, in particular, were known for their brutality, so much so that people would flee at the sight of a constable. This fear persisted well into the 1960s, but change slowly came as courts began to strike down colonial-era provisions.
However, even today, we haven't entirely shaken off the colonial legacy. For instance, archaic and invasive procedures like the "two-finger test" were only outlawed recently. There are still many outdated rules that have no place in a civilized society.
Facts of the Case
The case centers on a vegetable vendor in Agra, who frequently encountered Constable Tota Ram while selling his vegetables. The constable, exercising his authority, would regularly demand free vegetables, and the vendor, out of fear, would comply. Tota Ram threatened to throw the vendor into “hawalat” (lockup) if he refused. Eventually, the vendor had enough and refused to give Tota Ram any free cucumbers. True to his word, the constable arrested the vendor and threw him into lockup.
The Magistrate who presided over the case was sympathetic to the vendor’s plight. Not only did he discharge the vendor, but he also took the opportunity to critique the legislation itself. However, his choice of words, such as “I detest” and “I reject,” in his written judgment was seen as overly harsh and did not sit well with law enforcement or the state. The state subsequently filed a revision petition against the Magistrate's discharge order.
The Trial
During the trial, the Attorney General argued that the vendor’s arrest was lawful under Section 109 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This section allowed the arrest of individuals for: (1) concealing their presence, (2) lacking ostensible means of livelihood, or (3) failing to give a satisfactory account of themselves. The Magistrate, however, felt that the law was outdated and oppressive. He questioned the necessity of arresting someone simply because they didn’t provide a reason for their presence or their livelihood.
While the Court upheld the discharge, it did not agree with the reasoning offered by the Magistrate. Instead, the Court maintained that while the Magistrate had legitimate concerns about the legislation, his approach and harsh language were inappropriate for a legal judgment.
Takeaway
The most striking takeaway from this case is what it reveals about the post-colonial era in India. Imagine being arrested simply for refusing to give a cucumber to a constable in a country plagued by poverty, where people could barely make ends meet. Worse still, the state's priority seemed to be the tone of the Magistrate's judgment rather than addressing the injustice faced by the vendor.
The Magistrate, who would likely have appreciated the present-day legal landscape in India, spoke out against Section 109 of the erstwhile CrPC, which has since been amended to remove many of its more draconian provisions. Today, the CrPC itself has been replaced.
Indian cinema often depicts the police casually using their lathis (batons) on working-class individuals, treating it as comic relief. This reflects just how normalized police brutality has become in India. However, it is high time we trained our police force to not only be effective in curbing crime but also to be sensitive and approachable for the common man.
The Supreme Court, in various judgments, has called out many outdated and excessively harsh laws that are used to punish the accused. But it is the responsibility of the state to enact these reforms. Until then, we can only hope that people are spared from unnecessary police brutality.