Supreme Court Suspends Gujarat Cops for Public Whipping, Calls Act "Horrific"

Four Gujarati police officers were suspended by the Supreme Court on Tuesday for publicly whipping five Muslim men who were accused of impeding a garba event in the Kheda area last year. The Gujarat High Court had sentenced the officers to 14 days in jail.

What kind of horrors? You expect this court to help you when you tie them to poles and beat them in broad daylight? The bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta addressed senior attorney Sidharth Dave, who was speaking on behalf of the police.

On October 19, 1971, the victims petitioned the court and the accused policemen, A.V. Paramar, D.B. Kumavat, Laxmanisnh Kanaksinh Dabhi, and Rajubhai Dabhi, were given a 14-day punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. The victims had previously petitioned the high court, citing the ruling of the supreme court in the 1996 case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, whereby the police were instructed not to use excessive force or violence during detention against suspected or accused individuals.

The accused policemen filed an appeal with the highest court, claiming that the contempt penalty was unnecessary since they were already the subject of criminal and departmental procedures.

Judge Gavai questioned the police's authority as the bench dismissed the claim, saying, "So you (police) have a power under law? to beat and bind people to polls?

Justice Mehta, the second judge, chimed in to add, "And take videos?"

The court made reference to rumors that the accused cops may have videotaped the event in addition to beating and tying the victims.

In response to Dave's argument that the cops were not aware of the D.K. Basu ruling and his argument against deliberate disobedience, Justice Gavai said, "So ignorance of law is a valid defense."

The top court accepted the high court's conclusions that the five Muslim males were unlawfully held for more than twenty-four hours prior to being publicly whipped.

Dave refuted the allegation of unlawful detention, arguing that it was subject to a trial and should not be taken into account for determining contempt.

Judge Gavai acknowledged the accused officers' statutory appeal and emphasized that all police officers have a responsibility to know the law as established in D.K. Basu.

Every police officer has an obligation to be aware of the laws established in D.K. Basu. We have been hearing about D.K. Basu as law students," Justice Gavai said.

In defense of the high court's sentence, senior attorney I.H. Syed argued that the contempt proceedings stood alone from criminal and departmental measures on behalf of the victims.

In response to the officers' request, the bench sent official notifications to the victims and the government of Gujarat. Dave begged the court to set aside the high court's ruling for his detention, but Justice Gavai simply said, "Enjoy the custody." Your own cops are going to be your guests. They'll give you extra attention.

Dave brought up the three-month stay on the jail order issued by the high court, which allowed for the appeal to be heard by the Apex court.