This is the fifth article in the series ‘Law and Justice: A Journey through History’. Read parts 1, 2, 3, and 4.Rule of law is the bedrock of any modern society. It ensures equality of all before the law. Through notions of justice, punitive mechanisms, and multiple avenues of enforcement, law shapes social relationships and also in turn gets reconstituted and challenged by actors and contexts. In these moments law takes on another attribute – that of virtue. As we explore the troubled relationship between law, justice and society in the following essays, we will note how law struggles to negotiate a delicate balance between its punitive trait and as a messiah for justice. The essays in this series will uncover some fascinating aspects of law by turning to the archives of law. This will help uncover the commonalities between history, legal history, and socio- legal studies and also foster greater dialogue between historians and lawyers in South Asia. The essays for this special series will be curated by Dr Nitin Sinha (Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient, ZMO Berlin), Dr Sukhalata Sen (Former Assistant Professor, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru) and Vidhya Raveendranathan (Centre for Modern Indian Studies, University of Göttingen).§Police brutality has become a widespread issue in India. The rise in cases of torture of the poor and marginalised social groups for petty crimes is an alarming trend. For example, in 2023, two constables of Padmanabham police station under the Visakhapatnam Commissionerate of Police were detained for allegedly inflicting ‘third degree’ torture on a ‘Dalit’ man. The severe torture resulted in the femur bone being broken in two parts. The injured man was accused of stealing a rooster.In 2024, a man hailing from the Pardhi tribe – a group historically labeled as inherently criminal by the British – in Guna district, Madhya Pradesh, was arrested and subjected to immense torture leading to his death for charges of theft. Excessive police brutality in such petty cases as chain snatching and theft of a rooster signifies a deeper role of power and the romance about its abuse. It is also a fact, as depicted in a number of films, that police excess is viewed as the most efficient method for controlling crime, which gets romanticised in the figure of an honest but unlawful police officer. In fact, honesty could only be practiced by being unlawful, which in a circular fashion brings us back to the question of police reform and political subordination. But beyond this romanticisation, in practice, police brutality is highest on poor classes and groups, such as household workers, ragpickers, and other social marginals. They are, by default, treated as criminals unless proven otherwise. According to government data presented in parliament in 2023, the number of deaths in police custody saw a 60% increase over the the three years leading up to 2023 and over 75% over the two years leading up to 2023 across the country. Information compiled by the National Human Rights Commission indicates a 60% surge in cases of police violence in states such as Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala, Rajasthan, and West Bengal. With numerous instances of fatalities and killings of criminal suspects being brought to light, we are consistently prompted to contemplate strategies to modernise or decolonise the law enforcement system. But the lingering question remains: What kind of historical understanding of police reform do we need in order to comprehend the present-day normalisation of police torture and the systematic criminalisation of specific castes and labouring groups? §In post-independent India, police reform became a buzzword amongst lawmakers. Ever since the establishment of the National Police Commission in 1979, numerous well-intentioned endeavours were made to transform the character of the police force. They aimed at moulding it into an effective, unbiased, and proficient institution, with accountability and transparency as the core features of its functioning. The first national police commission report stated in its mandate: “The primary challenge concerning law enforcement today lies in optimising the efficiency and impartiality of the police force, ensuring that it is fully committed to serving the public while upholding constitutional rights and liberties. The fundamental role of the police is to act as a law enforcement entity, providing unbiased service in alignment with the law, irrespective of any government directives that may contradict or deviate from constitutional or legal provisions.” Various subsequent reports published in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s have emphasised measures to achieve this. They include creating conditions in which FIRs could be registered without fear, and other aspects such as procedural integrity and precision, streamlining of the recruitment systems, meticulous witness examinations, establishment of formation cells, and judicial inquiry commissions to ensure minimal political interference and adherence to the principles of accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. However, despite the abundance of reform initiatives and redress mechanisms implemented to enhance the accountability of the police force, the issue of police violence, particularly the brutalisation of marginalised social groups, is often perceived as a consequence of the police force not being adequately modern or professional.Also read: The Trials of Law and History in South AsiaCauses such as insufficient training of constables, political interference, or the colonial legacy of antiquated police laws are often propped up. Even in the case of the recently constituted criminal laws, the aim has been to go beyond the Police Act of 1861 and harness digital technology for solutions. For instance, video documenting of crime scenes to ensure justice and procedural integrity, which would impose checks on the exercise of arbitrary power by the police, has been stipulated. This is in spite of the fact that the Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita presents several ambiguous definitions of crimes and upholds various colonial provisions from the antiquated criminal laws, which have consequently led to the erosion of pivotal safeguards against police excesses. As numerous experts have emphasised, the BNSS claims of modernising and eliminating the vestiges of the colonial past have predominantly been rhetorical and empty rather than practical. Police and security personnel during a route march near Jama Masjid at Mominpura area during the holy month of Ramzan, amid curfew after recent violence, in Nagpur, Maharashtra, Friday, March 21, 2025. Photo: PTI.There is certainly a kernel of truth that the challenges faced by Indian police forces and the origins of the current culture of police impunity are linked to the adoption of the Police Act of 1861 by independent India. In his work on Madras police in the nineteenth century, historian David Arnold has shown that following the 1857 rebellion, this act was designed to protect British imperial interests. Modelled after the Royal Irish Constabulary, which was established to quell agrarian unrest and sporadic acts of terrorism against the British dominion, the colonial policing system exclusively catered to the interests of the colonial rulers. The executive wielded absolute authority over the police’s day-to-day operations, with no autonomous mechanisms in place to oversee its activities or ensure public accountability for the use of extralegal methods and exemplary punishments. Colonial police performed the functions of controlling, coercing, and criminalising Indian subjects, particularly the nomadic and marginalised castes and communities. However, while this does explain the state of contemporary police repression, the prevalence of a lack of trust in the public, corruption, the targeting of Dalits and tribal communities, the use of legally sanctioned violence to extract confessions, and the ongoing subordination of the police to the dictates of the political elite has a much longer history predating the passage of the Indian Police Act of 1861. There is a strong historical genealogy to this practice, which is linked to the justice and police institutions that emerged in the early nineteenth century.§At the time of his appointment in January 1803, William Bentinck was deemed an unsuitable candidate by the East India Company officials for the prestigious role of Governor of Fort St. George. His prior training had primarily been in military affairs, and his experience was largely confined to Europe. Furthermore, he lacked any substantial understanding of India or its governance. After securing a plum appointment largely due to the lobbying by his father, Bentinck had to prove that he was indeed a tough administrator who could shoulder the responsibility of administering the newly acquired territories of the Madras Presidency. The Vellore Mutiny on November 14, 1805, heightened this challenge. The sepoys had openly disobeyed the newly issued Madras military regulations. These regulations mandated that the sepoys in infantry and artillery don a new turban instead of their traditional headgear. They also prohibited them from displaying their caste marks or religious symbols. It was in this context of a major military crisis that William Bentinck laid out a comprehensive plan for an overhaul of the criminal police system in Madras. The initial impetus for police reform did come through the security concerns arising from a group of insubordinate native soldiers, but it gradually evolved into a project to fight crime and establish a police force equipped with discretionary yet legitimate authority. In presenting the proposal for the reform of the police to the Governor in Council, Bentinck contended that the existing police establishment neither apprehended the thieves nor did they ensure their prosecution. Under these circumstances, he ardently advocated for the establishment of an institution empowered to enforce corporal punishment, either publicly or privately, as a means of upholding the law. Emphasising the paramount importance of public safety, he asserted that while the use of coercion might be antithetical to the “principles of protection and justice inherent to the character of a British government,” there was a need to restrain individual liberty and grant the police summary powers to ensure punishment for individuals suspected of minor property transgressions. Also read: A Killing, Beatings, Maimings and Rape: The Extraordinary Torture of the Pardhi Community at the Hands of MP PoliceWhat ensued was the expansion of the police force, the appointment of the police superintendent armed with powers of prosecution, and the establishment of a sophisticated network of interconnected law enforcement agencies. Moreover, there also occurred a growing recognition within the colonial administration of the imperative need for discretionary powers and the lawful implementation of coercion to quickly address minor infractions committed by the lower orders of society. Bentinck’s rationale for the utilisation of legally sanctioned force against specific social classes and petty offenders shaped the course of policing in India.Members of PHE Daily Wagers Association clash with police during a protest rally, in Jammu, Saturday, March 22, 2025. Photo: PTIBentinck’s propositions faced substantial opposition from the justices of the Madras Supreme Court, which was an independent British Crown institution that normatively followed the juridical principles of English law. In 1807, Justice Henry Gwillim emerged as a prominent critic of the concept of establishing a police force and a justice system endowed with discretionary powers of punishment and coercion. Gwillim frequently criticised the apprehension of suspects accused of petty crimes by police subordinates and advocated for the supervision of police officials and subordinate tribunals by the superior courts. He put his views into action on multiple occasions by penalising police subordinates on the charges of bribery or excessive flogging brought against them by ordinary men and women. The police superintendent retaliated by accusing Gwillim of inciting the local population against the government and undermining its authority. He argued that the Supreme Court’s regulation of the arbitrary power wielded by the police had led to the insolence and disobedience of the lower classes toward the law. Clearly, we can see that for him, the authority of law required the exercise of discretionary power. As Gwillim’s complaints against the police and the EIC officials did not cease, the government finally issued an order for his arrest and extradition to England to stand trial for misconduct as a judge. Unwilling to retreat, Gwillim lodged a complaint against the police superintendent with the grand jury of the Supreme Court. What transpired was a scathing critique of the police superintendent’s arbitrary power to issue summons, make arrests, and detain individuals without adhering to proper protocols. Of paramount importance was his contention that English law was designed to protect all individuals, including the Indians, from oppression. Ultimately, the grand jury, while acknowledging that the police superintendent and officers had arbitrarily confined and arrested individuals, agreed with the government’s stance that Gwillim had incited a spirit of resistance amongst Indians against the authorities. They ordered his recall to England. In terms of having any real impact, the Gwilim episode was a fleeting divergence. In the years following the Gwillim incident, there was a marked expansion and formalisation of summary justice. Grounded in the language of efficiency and economy, colonial officials argued that dispensing with formalities and swiftly executing punishments was the most effective method for addressing minor offences and offenders. More and more regulations were established by the Madras government and upheld by the Supreme Court, which sanctioned the use of corporal punishment and hard labour on individuals accused of petty theft. For instance, the 1811 police regulations and the 1818 Madras Marine regulations, which addressed employment-related cases, breaches of work contracts, and theft involving urban workers, bolstered the discretionary powers of the lower courts and empowered them to economize on crucial protocols relating to evidence and the burden of proof. In numerous cases, the mere possession of materials such as metal, rope, textiles, or wood, alongside prior behaviour and character, could potentially result in apprehension by the police and conviction by magistrates. In subsequent years, the expansion of the summary justice system provided a legal scaffolding for the police officials to circumvent due process and use violence to extract confessions from suspects. Certainly, during the early colonial rule, the juridical logic of the rule of law had been purposely subordinated to the executive for the implementation of severe corporal punishment and the elimination of essential evidentiary procedures. This colonial legacy continues to the present day. Extralegal policing strategies and the vilification of labouring social groups and the disenfranchised are deemed essential and effective, both by the state and the public, for upholding the sanctity of law and property relations. Vidhya Raveendranathan is currently finishing her doctoral dissertation on urban labour in early colonial Madras at the Centre for Modern Indian Studies, Göttingen.
