The public hearing commenced with the welcome address by Sumita Jaiswal, a noted journalist. Vandana Prabha, a social science and development researcher invited the jury members, the victims and the student activists for the public hearing. The members included: Padam Shri Sudha Verghese, founder of Nari Gunjan, Ajmal Ahsraf, noted educationist, Basant Chaudhary, senior advocate and Pranav Chaudhary, a veteran journalist. The issue of police brutality in Bihar during late July 2026 was introduced by Kishori Das,former state general secretary of PUCL, Bihar and Dr. Gopal Krishna, advocate, Patna High Court. Altogether there were sixteen oral testimonies of Saba Karim, Akash Kumar Yadav, Arif, Om Anand Sharma, Ashish, Arun Kumar Ram, Amarjit Kushwaha, ex-MLA, Rishabh Kumar, Aman, Bhagya Shri, Sudhir, Manisha, Dhananjay, Kumar Pervez, Akash Anand and Vishwajeet. There was one video testimony by Bullet Kumar Gond. The public hearing was concluded by Prof. Pushpendra, Vice-President, PUCL who read out a resolution condemning police atrocities, which was endorsed by the participants including Dr Meera Datta, editor, Talash, Vyasji, former additional chief secretary, Bihar, Preeti Sinha, editor, Filhaal, Rishi Anand, social activist, Akankha Malviya, advocate, Patna High Court, Advocate Sachin, Dr. Pawan Sharma, social activist, Ram Avatwar, RTI activist and several other eminent personalities and activists.
In his introduction to the subject of state sponsored police brutality at the public hearing convened by PUCL at Indian Medical Association (IMA) Hall, Gandhi Maidan, Patna on August 22, 2026, Dr. Gopal Krishna observed that all the districts of the country and the state capitals including Gandhi Maidan, Patna became an extension of protest site at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi against the unprecedented national examination paper leak scam in late July 2026, which led to the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, the union education minister. The students and youth in Bihar were protesting against papers leaks in the state.
Some 11 major high-profile competitive examination leak scandals include:
1. Constable Recruitment Exams: Multiple leaks occurred across recruitment cycles in 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023 conducted by the Central Selection Board of Constable (CSBC).
2. BSSC Inter-Level & Clerk Grade Exams: Staff Selection Commission exams have faced widespread protests and cancellations due to leaked question papers.
3. Excise Department Exam: Irregularities and leaks were reported during the 2021–2022 recruitment cycle.
4. BPSC 67th Preliminary Test (2022): The preliminary examination was cancelled after the question paper circulated on social media shortly before exam commencement.
5. Amin Recruitment Exam (2023): Faced cancellation and probes following question paper breaches.
6. NEET Controversies (2023–2024): Investigations by economic offense units tied localized leak syndicates in Patna to wider medical entrance paper distribution.
7. BPSC Teacher Recruitment Exam - TRE (March 2024): The third-phase teacher recruitment exam paper was leaked from a roadside stop, leading to mass arrests of over 300 people and a complete re-examination.
8. Community Health Officer (CHO) Exam (2024/2026): Online computer-based recruitment tests faced cancellation due to widespread irregularities.
9. Assistant Election Development Officer (AEDO)
10. Havildar Instructor Exams (2026): state commission tests (such as the BPSSC Havildar Instructor exam) were postponed following fresh leaks
11. LLB Entrance Exam paper leak (2026) of Patna University
When students and youth protested, police brutality, the use of undue or unnecessary force came to light. The brutality included harassment, beatings, torture, and other forms of violence. In some cases, it is fatal or has fatal consequences. Police brutality is always an act of dehumanization.
The following types of cases of State sponsored police brutality has been documented by the team of Peoples Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Bihar:
1. Brutal lathi charge injuring students and youth.
2. Firing on students and youth resulting in some injuries.
3. Using a lethal firearm, AK-47, on students and youth, putting the lives of protesting students and youth in grave danger.
4. Custodial torture of students and youth by the police, resulting in injuries, loss of hearing, etc.
5. Illegal detention of students and youth without presenting them before a magistrate within 24 hours.
6. Families of detained students and youth were not informed about their whereabouts.
7. Detained students and youth denied access to their family members.
8. Students and youth were sent to judicial custody without informing them of the charges against them or providing them with a copy of the FIR.
9. Students and youth sent to judicial custody without access to a lawyer to defend them before the magistrate.
10. Police destroyed evidence, such as seizing mobile phones of students, youth and passerby citizens to destroy video recordings related to the use of force by them.
11. Raiding students’ and activists’ homes in the dead of night without any search warrant. Beating of residents, damaging household items, abusing women, including older women.
12. Obstructing an advocate on record of the Patna High Court and a law graduate in discharging his duty to represent his client, filing FIRs against two lawyers in unsubstantiated charges of liquor consumption and another charge of obstructing the police officer in discharging their duty, parading them handcuffed in public, and leaking their arrest memo photos to the media.
13. Photos and videos of protesting students and youth were released to media
Human action is deemed sane only if it upholds the other’s human dignity, and police brutality is an explicit rejection of the other, an attempt to assert superiority. The power police have is given to them so they can protect the vulnerable but their violence subverts their role. Aggressive violence is a grave perversion of that role. Everyone deserves to live free from violence, so no one should live in fear of police brutality. By now it is widely known that police brutality is an incredibly common problem. A preliminary analysis of literature on police brutality indicates that it is becoming one of the leading causes of death for young persons.
At the public hearing Dr. Gopal Krishna pointed out that police officers in Bihar in particular and the country in general encounter significant occupational stress due to challenging work conditions, impacting their mental and physical health.
A Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) research study of 2015 has found the deplorable living and working conditions of subordinate police personnel. The study concluded that 90% of constables and Sub Inspectors who constitute the cutting edge of the police force, work for more than 8 hours a day, while nearly 30% of them work for 14 hours on an average. 73% don’t get a weekly off even once a month. Disordered family and social life and lack of a proper work-life balance affects morale, motivation and self-esteem,leading to poor physical and mental health. More than 76% of police personnel have health problems due to standing for long hours, stress, sleep deprivation, irregular eating habits, exposure to heat, dust and noise pollution. The emotional trauma and suicidal tendencies are far higher than in other occupations. Adverse working/living conditions and frustration manifests itself in the form of fatigue, depression, irritability as well as impulsive, offensive, aggressive and high handed behavior with the public. A 2016 BPRD-commissioned fatigue report noted that over 91% of surveyed police persons suffered from job-related fatigue.
Another 2022 study by Prof. Monika Agrawal and Ritika Mahajan shows most of the police officers (73 percent) showed signs of poor mental health.
A study, Stress and Coping Mechanisms Among Police Officers in Bihar: A study published in January 2025 surveyed 200 police personnel across various ranks in Bihar It highlights that heavy workloads, tough work environments, and organizational pressures are primary drivers of chronic stress. It is published in Volume 11 Issue 8 of International Journal Of Innovative Research In Technology in January 2025.
It's key findings revealed that long working hours and exposure to traumatic events are the most significant stressors among Bihar police officers. It is taking its toll. While physical exercise and social support are common coping strategies, a notable percentage of officers resort to alcohol consumption, indicating the presence of maladaptive coping mechanisms.
The findings align with studies conducted in North India, which identify similar stressors and coping strategies among police personnel.
It concluded: “Police officers in Bihar experience high levels of occupational stress, primarily due to long working hours and exposure to traumatic events. While many adopt healthy coping mechanisms, the reliance on maladaptive strategies such as alcohol consumption is concerning. Implementing targeted stress management interventions is essential to enhance the well-being and effectiveness of these officers.”
Dr. Krishna observed: “Violence begins in false conditioned consciousness, peace must be built in true unconditioned consciousness, veil of ignorance must of removed to ensure that shared consciousness is regained, which alone can give birth to sense of human dignity and solidarity. All cruelty begins with dehumanization—not seeing the face of the other, not seeing the whole humanity of the other.” He wondered: “Why is police being militarized? Militarization encourages a mentality that police officers are an occupying force rather than an agency meant to protect and serve. Dealing with protest of fellow citizens is not the same as dealing with crime, it is not war, and it should not be treated as such.”
Jean-Paul Brodeur, in his book, The Policing Web (2010) wrote: “Policing agents are part of several connected organizations authorized to use in more or less controlled ways diverse means, generally prohibited by statute or regulation to the rest of the population, in order to enforce various types of rules and customs that promote a defined order in society, considered in its whole or in some of its parts.” He identifies the ability to use means that are usually denied to others. He is referring not only to physical force but also to other means that are available to the police, such as profiling and surveillance, that are otherwise prohibited. From this premise, Brodeur developed a theory of policing that is founded on the concept of legal lawlessness, or the ability to legally use a range of otherwise illegal means. Fabien Jobard explained this concept as “the ability to legally infringe on the shared law” in his “Proposition on the Theory of Policing” (2012). The use of force is still a potent symbol of the exceptional nature of police work. Indian state needs to closely examine the idea that the ultimate aim of the police and their use of force is to enforce the law. If it does not do so, it creates a situation where citizens become victims of what has been referred to as “lawless laws”.
Dr. Krishna referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shailendra Mani Tripathi vs. Union of India & Ors. (2026), wherein, the Court’s 3-Judge Bench has passed 18-page long order dated August 18, 2026, whereby, it has constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC) headed by former Supreme Court judge R. Subhash Reddy to inquire into the allegations of use of excessive force and violence by Delhi Police against the protesting students at Jantar Mantar in late July 2026. The HPC will also comprise former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Ravi Shankar Jha; former judge of the Delhi High Court Justice Shalinder Kaur; former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Rishi Kumar Shukla; and former Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Dr. L.R. Bishnoi as members. A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India has provided a terms of reference to the HPC to inquire into:
-The use of excessive force and violence against protesters by police authorities and other agencies, including the deployment of pellet guns, electric batons, lathi charges, and tear gas without adequate warning or proportionality, resulting in severe bodily harm and injuries, some of which are alleged to be of a grievous and lasting nature;
-The question of ensuring a proportionate and measured police response during protests, public gatherings, and peaceful assemblies, so as to strike an appropriate balance between the maintenance of public order and the constitutional right to peaceful dissent;
-The desirability of banning the use of metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile-action guns, having regard to the grave and, at times, irreversible bodily harm occasioned by their deployment against protesters;
-The necessity of ensuring that police and security personnel wear proper uniforms and visible nameplates at the time of effecting arrests or using force during crowd-control operations, so as to secure accountability and enable the identification of individual officers;
-An inquiry into the allegations pertaining to the monitoring and surveillance of protesters by police personnel, and the extent to which such measures, if undertaken, were consistent with the protesters’ constitutional rights to privacy and free assembly;
-The alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment, molestation and/or any secondary victimisation directed against female protesters, which, given the gravity and sensitivity of the allegations, warrant a focused and expeditious inquiry;
-The provision of medical and other requisite support, including award of compensation, to victims of alleged police abuse, including the manner and adequacy of such support extended thus far;
-Regulation of the issuance of blanket prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (Section 144, IPC), so as to prevent their use as a routine or pre-emptive measure that forecloses the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly rather than as a genuine, proportionate response to a real and imminent threat to public order; and
The HPC has also been asked to examine counter-allegations from the families of police personnel and the State which include:-The alleged use of force and violence by protesters against police officials and other security personnel, which, according to the Respondents, has been understated in the narrative advanced by the Petitioners and warrants an equally rigorous and unbiased examination; The damage occasioned to public property on account of the actions of the protesters during the course of the said demonstrations, including the destruction of and injury caused to government installations, vehicles, and other assets belonging to the State and to private citizens alike; and the injuries sustained by the police forces in the course of discharging their duties, as well as the consequent mental and emotional trauma borne by their kith and kin, which merits due recognition and consideration on a par with the grievances raised by the Petitioners. The Bench has directed the parties to approach the HPC and submit such relevant material, documentary evidence, and suggestions as they may deem fit, in such manner as may be decided by the HPC through its Chairperson.
The establishment of strict constitutional thresholds and safeguards to prevent Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (for words or acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, deshdroh), from being invoked as an instrument to stifle political dissent and peaceful protest, thereby ensuring that the provision remains confined to its intended purpose and is not permitted to operate as a chilling restraint upon constitutionally protected speech and assembly. It is akin to Section 124 A, IPC for sedition or rajdroh, which has been removed in an apparent exercise of decolonisation. Although Supreme Court has asked the governments to provide it the list of FIRs filed across the country against the students and youth who have been charged under Sections 126, 132, 189, 190, 191, 194, 223 (dealing with wrongful restraint and assault on public servant, unlawful assembly, common object, rioting and disobedience to order by public servant respectively) and other provisions. So far the government has not provided the list of FIRs to the Court. The 3-judge bench of the Court has granted liberty for complaints, representations, and material to be provided anonymously so that the identity of the complainants and witnesses is protected.
Can democratic culture in restrain use of illegitimate force? In just and democratic policing, the nature of and limits to police action is set by democratic legal systems which are in line with social legitimacy and legal expectations. In authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, a convergence emerges between legal orientations and collective sensibilities, normalizing use or threat of use of force to resolve critical situations in citizen-state relationship. In these regimes, state does not impose constraint on police use of force because individual liberties and the cause of justice appear inconsequential to them. Studies have drawn three general conclusions: (1) the legitimacy of police use of force derives from the state’s political and institutional system;(2) constraints on police use of force is linked to whether or not safeguarding citizens from abuse of power is a priority for the state; and(3) the use of force in specific police action depends on overall perceptions of the acceptability of police violence by the state and the society.
Is there any difficulty in our society in talking fully and openly about the deep dilemmas inherent in policing a democratic, violent, and fear-ridden society? Isn’t brutality a form of deviance? Aren’t there “bad cops”, who ought to be distinguished from “good cops”? Is it impossible to set aside rotten apples to reduce violence by police force?
Unless this done, can fellow citizens including students and youth ever trust the police? Will the State be able to decode the interconnectedness between the meaning a violent act has for the police as an actor, and the meaning it has for the fellow citizens? Whatever decision is made will ultimately act of violence have to be declared legitimate or illegitimate after factoring in judgment deficits, if any. Dr. Krishna’s note prepared for his submission at the public hearing, reads: “Will the state provide remedy for the physical and mental ailments of the police personnel? Is it natural for laws, policies, and institutional practices to continue to discriminate between how it treats the richest 1% of the population and the rest of the 99% of the population? Can the toxic culture of state violence of be eliminated and a culture of peace be created?”
No comments:
Post a Comment