Author: Harshit, Uttar Pradesh State Institute Of Forensic Science, Lucknow
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/harshit-vashishtha-00686a303?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app
To the Point
The Bhagalpur Blinding Case(1979-1980) is one of the example case of custodial torture in the Indian legal history in this case police delibrerately poured acid in the eyes of more than 30 undertrial prisonerd in india. It was a complete constitutional violation not just a criminal act which was done by police itself. This case of Bhagalpur unfold the system of power abuse by the law enforcement and started the national conversation on human rights, police reforms and the limitation of constitutional safeguards. Despite getting ample compensation and limited disciplinary action the pursuit of justice remained inadequate which reveals critical deficiencies. We talk about the difficulties victims had to bear to get their justice.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Bhagalpul Blinding Case voilates many fundamental rights like Article 21 which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty, Article 14 which talks about right to equality before law etc. In the given case state police put acid in the eyes of victims in the police custody which clearly is a custodial violence. The state police took the extrajudicial punishment in this case. The case came in highlight with the help of PIL(Public Interest Litigation) it is a judicial innovation in indian jurisprudence where citizens or organizations can approach the courts to get remedy for any of violation of their constitutional right. It also talks about the doctrine of state acountability which means a state can be held liable for actions committed by its agent during the course of duty.
The Proof
There were various undeniable and strong evidences which clarified that the police forcefully put acid in the eyes of the prisoners. The doctors and hospital confirmed that there were forceful interventation by someone to put acid in the eyes this could not happen because of some accident. And the victims themselves gave statements they describe the whole incident.
There was a magazine named sunday which showed the world what had really happened. To investigate the whole the state of bihar set up a special team which also could not deny the facts that this all wa done by the police itself. And on the top of that there were no legal records like FIRs, arrest paper etc which means that the police had ignored bsic legal procedures hand had acted outside the law. All this proved that the blinding was real, intentionl and carried out by the people who were supposed to uphold the law.
Abstract
The case of Bhagalpur is dark and haunting which reminds us the capacity of state to commit horrific acts like this case. From 1979-1980 in Bhagalpur, the Bihar police officials blinded more than 30 undertrial prisoners by pouring acid into their eyes. This was not just an horrific act by some individual because it was done by the police of Bihar itself. Because of this case there were legal, ethical and constitutional debates on custodial violence, fundamental rights and limitations of legal redress mechanism. This case also highlight the limitations in the implementation of Article 21 and inadequency of existing police accountability mechanisms. The judicial system also did not act in an adequate manner by not giving enough punitive action and limiting rehabilitative efforts for the victims. It talks about the limitation in the imlementation of laws in the appropriate manner.
Case Laws
1. D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997):- In this landmark case the specific procedural safegaurds to prevent custodial torture laid down. The court declared that custodial torture down the human dignity and that compensation must be granted under public law for constitutionak violations.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa(1993):- In this case, the court declared that compensation can be granted by constitutional courts for torture and custodial deaths even if criminal trails are pending.
3. Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Administration(1980):- In this case, the court held that handcudding or other cruel and unusual punishment violates Article 21 unless absolute necessity. The Bhagalpur blinding was purely unconstitutional.
Conclusion
The case of Bhagalpur Blinding will remain a legal, moral and constitutional tradegy. By pouring the acid in the eyes of undertrial prisoners the state police violates the fundamental rights, moral rights and human rights. The Supreme Court helps to get monetary compensation and pronouncing strong judgement against custodial violence but the delay in justice was also part of that judgement. By this case we can se how the implementation of law is far more away from what is written in the constitution. The people of india after four decades forget the victims and this case but the poilice brutality continues across the country. By this case we can conclude that without proper police reforms, judicial vigilance the protection given by the constitution are just a wordings. To make the country better we not only have to make appropriate laws but we have to ensure that every law which are made must be implemented in the correct manner.
FAQS
1. What was the Bhagalpur Blinding Case?
It was a case in which the state police deliberately poured the acid in te eyes of more than 30 undertrial prisoners.
2. Were the victims criminals?
They were undertrials but not convicts. This mens that they were only accused of crimes not proven guilty. Indian law says that ll accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
3. What was the role of judiciary?
The judiciary stepped in after the media exposure and piblic outrage. It helps the victims by giving compensation and set precedent for custodial violence cases. But the delay in the justice should be condemn.
4. Has India enacted any anti-torture law since the case happened?
Despite being a said by the UN convention against torture, India has not passed a specific anti torture law.
5. What legal action was taken against the police Officers?
Some of the police officers were suspended and minor criminal proceeding were started. But most of them avoided significant punishment. And no senior officer as convicted.
