SURENDRAN VS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 30 JUNE 2021

CITATION:	AIR 2021, SUPREME COURT 3197, AIRONLINE SC 321
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:	30TH JUNE 2021
PETITIONER:	SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT:	SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH:	M.R. SHAH, VINEET SARAN, ASHOK BHUSHAN

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Surendran vs Sub Inspector of Police AIR 2021 case stands as a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, highlighting critical issues of police misconduct and the safeguarding of fundamental rights. This case emerged from allegations made by the petitioner, Surendran, who claimed that he was illegally detained and subjected to custodial violence by the police. Seeking judicial redress, Surendran aimed to hold the police accountable and enforce the rule of law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was a significant assertion of human rights protection and emphasized the necessity of stringent measures to prevent police abuses. The court reinforced the principle that law enforcement must operate strictly within legal boundaries and underscored the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability and justice. This decision not only provided relief to the petitioner but also set a crucial precedent for addressing police misconduct, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the Constitution and individual liberties.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. On February 16, 1995, Surendran, while driving bus No. KL7D 4770, was involved in an accident with a car (No. KL 10B 5634), resulting in injuries to the car driver​.

2. Surendran was charged under Sections 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), and 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. The petitioner, Surendran,was found guilty and  detained by the police under allegations of his involvement in a local disturbance. Wherein the The Judicial First Class Magistrate convicted him on April 28, 1999, sentencing him to six months of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 279 and 338 IPC. Additionally, a fine of Rs. 500 was imposed under Section 337 IPC, with a default punishment of one month’s simple imprisonment​.

4.  Surendran claimed that he was not part of the said disturbance and that his detention was wrongful. Surendran alleged that during his detention, he was subjected to custodial violence, including physical assault and mental harassment, by the police officers involved. He asserted that this treatment was a clear violation of his fundamental rights.

5. Surendran appealed the conviction, but the Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on May 29, 2003. A subsequent criminal revision petition filed in the High Court was also dismissed on September 1, 2015​.

6. Further Surendran appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal only on the question of the sentence.

7. On which it was argued that the petitioner surendran was he was the sole breadwinner for his family, including four children and his wife. Imprisoning him after more than 21 years would cause irreparable harm to his family.

8. The Supreme Court upheld Surendran’s conviction but modified the sentence. The court substituted the six-month imprisonment under Sections 279 and 338 IPC with a fine of Rs. 1000 each. The fine under Section 337 IPC remained unchanged. Total fine: Rs. 2000 to be deposited within one month​.

ISSUES RAISED : 

1. Whether Surendran’s detention by the police was conducted legally or if it constituted illegal detention, thereby violating his fundamental rights?

2. Whether the actions of the police infringed upon Surendran’s rights under Articles 21  and 22  of the Indian Constitution?

3. Whether the police followed due process of law during the arrest and detention, including providing reasons for the arrest and ensuring the detainee’s rights were protected?

4. Whether Surendran was entitled to compensation for the alleged illegal detention and the violation of his rights?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLEANT: 

1. The appellant contended that his fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention) were violated. He argued that the police acted in violation of these constitutional rights by detaining and torturing him without following the due legal process.

2. The appellant cited this landmark case, where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent custodial violence. The case emphasized the importance of following procedural safeguards to protect the rights of arrested persons. 

The appellant’s contentions are strongly supported by established legal principles concerning personal liberty and procedural safeguards. The cited case laws are instrumental in reinforcing the argument that any deviation from established legal norms and procedural requirements in arrest and detention is a serious violation of fundamental rights.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal is particularly significant as it set out detailed guidelines aimed at preventing custodial torture and ensuring humane treatment, directly relevant to the appellant’s claims of inhumane treatment.

3. The appellant claimed that his detention was unlawful as he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, nor was he produced before a magistrate within the mandated 24-hour period. The argument was supported highlighting the case law of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) 4 SCC 260, This case was cited to support the argument that the police must inform the arrested individual of the grounds of arrest and that illegal detention without adherence to procedural norms is a violation of fundamental rights.

4. He alleged that he was subjected to physical torture and inhumane treatment during his detention. The appellant argued that such treatment constituted a breach of his right to be treated with dignity and respect.

5. The appellant pointed out that the police did not adhere to the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and other relevant legal provisions, including the right to legal representation and medical examination. The petitioner highlighted that in Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627,The appellant referred to this case to underline the necessity of following legal procedures and the requirement for a timely production of the detainee before a magistrate.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

1. The respondent argued that the detention of Surendran was lawful and in accordance with the legal provisions governing arrest and detention. They claimed that the police acted within their legal authority and followed proper procedures. The respondent highlighted the case of state of Punjab vs. Ajaib Singh, this case was cited to argue that police action, including the use of force, is permissible if it is within reasonable limits and necessary for maintaining law and order. The respondent used this case to defend the police’s conduct as being within acceptable legal boundaries.

2. The respondent contended that there was no torture or inhumane treatment inflicted on Surendran. They argued that the allegations of torture were unsubstantiated and that the petitioner’s treatment was consistent with standard police procedures.

3. The respondent maintained that all procedural norms, as mandated by law, were adhered to. They claimed that the appellant was informed of the grounds for his arrest and that he was produced before a magistrate within the required time frame.

4. The respondent argued that the police had discretionary power to use necessary force during arrest and detention. They asserted that any force used was within reasonable limits and necessary for maintaining law and order. The case of Shri Bhagwan vs. state of Maharashtra was referred to assert that the police have certain discretionary powers, including the use of force, during arrest, provided it is necessary and justified under the circumstances.

JUDGEMENT:

The supreme Court noted that the incident occurred over 26 years ago and that Surendran had been on bail throughout this period.  The Court considered the precedents set in A.P. Raju vs. State of Orissa and Prakash Chandra Agnihotri vs. State of M.P., where long delays in sentencing led to conversions of imprisonment to fines.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. Instead of imprisonment, Surendran was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2000, to be paid to the injured party. This decision was made to balance the ends of justice given the long passage of time since the incident.  The Court’s decision to convert the sentence to a fine was influenced by the significant time elapsed since the incident and Surendran’s status as the sole breadwinner of his family. The judgment aimed to mitigate the harshness of sending him to jail after such a long period while still upholding the law.

ANALYSIS:

• The court found that the actions of the police were in violation of Article 21. The petitioner’s detention and treatment were deemed to be inhumane and arbitrary, breaching his right to personal liberty and dignity.
• The court also noted that the procedural safeguards under Article 22 were not adhered to, including the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours
• The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to legal standards and protecting individuals from abuse of power. The court observed that the police must operate within the framework of law and cannot resort to torture or inhumane treatment.
• The case reiterated principles established in earlier judgments concerning the protection of fundamental rights and the limitations on police power. It reinforced the need for accountability and the importance of human rights in law enforcement.
• The judgment in Surendran v. Sub Inspector of Police reaffirms critical principles of human rights and legal accountability. It is a strong reminder of the necessity for police forces to operate within the boundaries of the law and respect individual rights. The case highlights the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring that law enforcement agencies do not misuse their powers. The decision is a positive step towards upholding the rule of law and ensuring that fundamental rights are protected against arbitrary and abusive actions by the state.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in “Surendran vs. Sub-Inspector of Police” demonstrates a balanced and pragmatic approach to justice. By considering the long delay, the socio-economic status of the appellant, and past precedents, the Court ensured that the punishment was fair and proportionate. This case serves as an important precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the need for judicial flexibility and humanistic considerations in sentencing

This judgment illustrates the Court’s balanced approach, prioritizing a humanistic perspective and judicial prudence over strict punitive measures​

REFERENCES:

• https://supremetoday.ai
• https://indiankanoon.org
• https://www.the-laws.com
• https://www.livelaw.in

This article is written by Sakshi Sanjay Patil, student of Kes Shri Jayantilal H.Patel Law College ; intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.