Indira Jaising Flags Police Impunity in India, Calls for Accountability Over Protest Crackdowns

Indira Jaising on Police Misconduct: Why India Needs Stronger Accountability for Police Action Against Protesters The right to protest is a fundamental feature of a constitutional democracy, but its practical protection depends on whether public authorities exercise their powers within the limits of the law. Concerns raised by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising over police misconduct and the alleged impunity enjoyed by law enforcement personnel have brought renewed attention to a critical question: what legal safeguards protect citizens when those entrusted with enforcing the law are accused of violating it? THE DEBATE OVER POLICE MISCONDUCT AND LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY Senior Advocate Indira Jaising has criticised the absence of a comprehensive, dedicated legal framework specifically addressing police misconduct in India. Her concerns highlight the difficulties that may arise when allegations of excessive force, arbitrary restrictions or unlawful interference with peaceful demonstrations involve the very authorities responsible for maintaining public order. Although Indian law provides several mechanisms to address police misconduct, including criminal proceedings, departmental inquiries, human rights complaints and constitutional remedies, the existence of these remedies does not automatically ensure effective accountability. The central issue is whether allegations are investigated independently, complaints are addressed promptly and officials responsible for unlawful conduct face appropriate consequences. The concern is particularly significant during public demonstrations, where the exercise of police powers must be balanced against citizens’ constitutional freedoms. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTEST UNDER ARTICLES 19 AND 21 The Constitution of India protects freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms under Article 19(1)(b). These freedoms enable citizens to express dissent, raise public grievances and participate in democratic debate. However, these rights are not absolute. Articles 19(2) and 19(3) permit reasonable restrictions on specified constitutional grounds. Authorities may therefore impose lawful restrictions to maintain public order, but such measures must satisfy applicable legal requirements and cannot be justified merely by invoking administrative convenience. Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, also assumes importance where police action allegedly involves unlawful detention, physical violence or arbitrary interference with personal liberty. The constitutional question is not whether the police can regulate demonstrations, but whether their actions are authorised by law, proportionate to the circumstances and consistent with fundamental rights. WHY POLICE ACTION MUST BE OPEN TO JUDICIAL REVIEW Jaising’s emphasis on challenging alleged violations through legal proceedings underscores the importance of judicial oversight. Where police action infringes constitutional freedoms or exceeds statutory authority, affected individuals may seek appropriate relief before the competent court, depending on the facts and applicable law. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other legally recognised purposes. Article 32 provides a remedy before the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Depending on the circumstances, criminal complaints, applications before appropriate authorities and proceedings seeking compensation or other relief may also be available. The appropriate remedy will depend on the nature of the alleged misconduct, the evidence available and the legal provisions applicable to the case. Documentation such as medical records, photographs, videos, witness accounts and relevant electronic evidence may assist in establishing what occurred. Judicial scrutiny is especially important when allegations concern excessive force or restrictions imposed without adequate legal justification. THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER The larger debate extends beyond individual incidents. Meaningful police accountability requires accessible complaint mechanisms, impartial investigations, transparent procedures and effective enforcement of existing safeguards. Clear operational standards governing crowd control, detention and the use of force can also help prevent arbitrary action. A dedicated legal framework addressing police misconduct could be considered as part of broader police reforms. Any such framework would need to complement existing criminal, constitutional and disciplinary remedies rather than create uncertainty about their application. Accountability must also preserve the legitimate role of the police in preventing violence and maintaining public order. The objective is not to prevent lawful policing, but to ensure that public authority is exercised responsibly and remains subject to the rule of law. CONCLUSION: DEMOCRATIC DISSENT REQUIRES ACCOUNTABLE POLICING The concerns raised by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising bring an essential constitutional principle into focus: law enforcement authorities are not exempt from legal scrutiny. The right to peaceful protest would lose much of its practical significance if alleged violations by public officials could not be effectively challenged. India’s constitutional framework already provides important protections and legal remedies. The continuing challenge lies in ensuring that these safeguards operate effectively, investigations remain credible and unlawful conduct attracts appropriate consequences. Ultimately, protecting democratic dissent requires more than recognising fundamental rights on paper. It requires institutions capable of enforcing those rights, including when allegations of abuse concern the very authorities entrusted with upholding the law.