The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition from Shah Faisal, who sought compensation for alleged police torture, stating that “every arrest and detention does not amount to custodial torture.” The court emphasized that substantial evidence is required for claims under Article 21 of the Constitution and found no grounds for human rights violations in Faisal’s case against Mahrajganj police.
Prayagraj: In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court observed that “Every arrest and detention does not amount to custodial torture,” as it dismissed a writ petition filed by Shah Faisal from Mahrajganj district. Faisal had sought compensation for alleged police misconduct, claiming he had faced torture in custody.
The court made its statement after reviewing the facts of the case, in which Faisal was called in for questioning regarding an FIR filed against him for allegedly assaulting Rishikesh Bharti with a rod. According to court documents, the police had initiated an inquiry into Faisal’s complaints, but “nothing was found against the policemen,” leading to their clearance. Judges Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar concluded there was no conclusive violation of human rights in Faisal’s case, stating, “It cannot be said that law enforcement agencies had gone overboard in repressing the crime in society.”
In his petition, Faisal claimed he was taken to the Partawal police outpost, where a sub-inspector and constable demanded ₹50,000, allegedly threatening to implicate him in a false case if he failed to pay. Faisal further alleged that, upon refusal, he was subjected to beatings in the lock-up.
The following day, Faisal attempted to file an FIR at Shyam Deorwa police station, but he claimed his request was rejected. He later submitted complaints to the IGRS Portal on February 18, 2021, and followed up with an application to the superintendent of police in Mahrajganj on February 19. When no action was taken, Faisal filed a writ petition with the Allahabad High Court.
In his petition, he asked the court to direct the SP of Mahrajganj to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers involved, file an FIR, and compensate him for alleged wrongful confinement.
The court, however, held that substantial evidence was lacking. In its judgment dated October 15, the bench emphasized,
“It is well-settled law that in cases of custodial torture, which would amount to violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, proceedings under Article 32 or 226 can be initiated only when there is substantial evidence of custodial torture.”
Read Also: The Bar Council of India: A Comprehensive Overview of Its Powers and Functions
The ruling reinforces the principle that allegations alone do not suffice in cases of alleged custodial abuse. It highlights the necessity of concrete evidence to support claims of mistreatment, especially under Article 21, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
The court’s stance underscores the balance between holding law enforcement accountable while ensuring that unfounded claims do not hinder the judicial process. This decision ultimately affirms the judiciary’s commitment to evidence-based justice, emphasizing that allegations of custodial torture must be supported by substantial proof before proceeding under constitutional safeguards.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE