In a recent judgment on a custodial death case from Chhattisgarh, the Chhattisgarh High Court made an observation that should unsettle anyone who believes in the rule of law. The High Court noted that the police officers involved in the death of a man in custody appeared to have intended “to teach a lesson” to the victim for misbehaving in public.
The facts of the case are as troubling as the language used. In this case, a Dalit man, arrested for alleged public misbehaviour, died in custody just hours after a medical check found no injuries. However, the postmortem revealed 26 wounds. Four police officers were convicted of murder by the trial court, but the High Court reduced it to culpable homicide, citing lack of intent but knowledge that the assault could cause death.
Violence cannot be framed as deterrence
The statement, quietly embedded in a detailed legal opinion, is not just an off-hand remark. It is the reflection of a deeply problematic institutional mindset, one that rationalises state violence not as a constitutional aberration but as a tolerable, even necessary, tool for discipline.
The judiciary must resist the temptation to rationalise police brutality, especially under the moral guise of correction or deterrence. “Teaching a lesson” is neither a principle found in the Constitution of India nor a recognised standard of justice. Rather, it is a phrase rooted in vigilante logic, a framework where violence is met with greater violence; where the law is enforced not through rights and procedures but through fear and punishment.
The real concern lies not in the commutation of the sentence, but in the conceptual framing of what happened. By stating that the officers intended to “teach a lesson”, the High Court inadvertently reinforces the very logic that normalises custodial torture in India. It suggests that the High Court views the violence not as a product of systemic rot but as a misguided form of discipline, excessive, perhaps, but still anchored in purpose. This is not a matter of semantics. Language shapes legal reasoning, and legal reasoning shapes policy. When a constitutional court appears to accept teaching a lesson as a partial justification or explanation for custodial violence, it reinforces a culture where officers feel emboldened to act as both enforcer and judge. It invites future violators to believe their actions will be read not as unlawful, but as excessive zeal.
Violence as a caste-coded enforcement
What gets erased in this framework is the identity of the victim, in this case a member of a Scheduled Caste. The trial court acquitted the prime accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and the High Court did not interfere. By demanding specific proof that the violence was caste motivated, the High Court ignored the lived reality of caste power. A Dalit man beaten to death in police custody by upper caste officers in rural India is not an incidental tragedy. It reflects a broader pattern of caste-coded enforcement.
India’s jurisprudence around the SC/ST Act remains trapped in a narrow reading. Courts tend to interpret the law as requiring explicit evidence that the assault occurred because of caste, ignoring that structural power itself often motivates and enables the violence. As long as the legal system demands overt slurs or declared caste intent to invoke the Act, it will continue to deny justice in most of the very cases the law was designed to address.
That India has a custodial violence problem is no longer in dispute. Multiple judgments by the Supreme Court of India, from Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs State of West Bengal, State of U.P. to Munshi Singh Gautam (D) and Ors. vs State of M.P., have emphasised the need for procedural safeguards, transparency in detention and strict limits on police force. Yet, deaths in custody continue at an alarming rate, disproportionately affecting Dalits, Adivasis and the poor. Despite clear judicial guidelines, compliance remains sporadic and enforcement weak. Investigations are often conducted by the very institutions implicated in the abuse.
The path for judicial integrity
This is why judicial language matters. Courts must not only hold individuals accountable but also interrogate the institutional norms that enable violence. Every time a court suggests that violence was used “to teach a lesson”, it sends a subtle but powerful message that state brutality is regrettable, but sometimes understandable. That some people, under some circumstances, may deserve it.
This is a dangerous path. The police are not agents of correction through coercion, but constitutional functionaries bound by the law. Justifying custodial violence for a minor offence such as public nuisance blurs that line dangerously. “Teaching a lesson” is not justice. It undermines a system built on proportionality, dignity and due process. Deterrence comes from legal punishment, not from state-sanctioned force. When courts validate such reasoning, they weaken the very constitutional order they are meant to uphold.
What is needed is not symbolic outrage but structural change. Courts must reinforce that violence in custody is never disciplinary. It is, in fact, criminal. The SC/ST Act must be robustly applied in every case where social power is weaponised. Independent accountability mechanisms must be strengthened and procedural safeguards made enforceable.
Most of all, the judiciary must not give moral shelter to extra-legal instincts. The idea that public misbehaviour deserves private punishment is not justice but authoritarianism in slow motion. A Constitution built on dignity, equality, and the rule of law cannot coexist with a justice system that tolerates “lessons” written in bruises.
Shivangi Singh is a lawyer based in Delhi. The views expressed are personal
Published – August 22, 2025 12:08 am IST