A majority of police personnel believe in using intimidation as a law enforcement tool.
Misuse of force by the police has long been a contentious issue in India. It often surfaces in public discourse following high-profile cases of custodial deaths or excessive violence. India lacks a specific law to prevent torture, but there is an extensive framework of legal procedures to ensure rights and safeguards of arrested people. The legality of arrest is dependent on full compliance with these procedures.
A recent Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) and Common Cause survey of 8,276 police personnel sheds light on the acceptance of force, fear tactics, and extrajudicial measures among India’s police personnel. It reveals that a majority of police personnel believe in using intimidation as a law enforcement tool.
More than half the respondents endorsed the use of tough methods to create fear among the public, with 20% describing it as very important and 35% as somewhat important. Only three in 10 police personnel completely rejected this fear-based approach, stating that the police force should be a friendly force and should have no need to instil fear (Table 1).
Table 1 | How important is it for the police to use rough methods to create fear among the public
Table appears incomplete? Click to remove AMP mode
The substantial support for the use of force among police personnel also extends to vigilante justice. More than a quarter of police respondents said mob violence was strongly justified in cases of sexual harassment and assault (27%) and child kidnapping (25%). Even for less serious offences such as pickpocketing and chain-snatching, 16% of police personnel completely justified mob violence.
In cases of alleged cow slaughter, 16% of police respondents strongly justified mob violence, while 22% endorsed partial justification (Table 2). Police personnel from Gujarat, Odisha, and Rajasthan offered the highest support to mobs punishing people in case of alleged cow slaughter (51%, 32% and 31% respectively).
Table 2 | Sometimes there are instances when mobs punish crime suspects with violence. In your opinion, to what extent is it justified for a mob to punish suspects in the following cases?
Three in every four police personnel (74%) prioritised following proper legal procedures over encounter killings, regardless of the nature of crime. However, close to one-fourth of the respondents (22%) also believed that for the greater good of the society, it is sometimes imperative to kill dangerous criminals during encounters instead of giving them a legal trial (Table 3).
Table 3 | Which of the two statements do you agree with the most?
Police personnel were also asked how often they adhered to various arrest procedures. Eight out of 10 personnel stated that a female officer was always present during the arrest of a woman.
A little over seven in 10 reported that they always informed the suspect of the reasons for their arrest and completed an inspection memo beforehand (72%). Overall, only three-fourths of personnel claimed full compliance with all legal arrest procedures. About one in 10 opined that they rarely or never followed all the procedures (Table 4).
Table 4 | In your experience, how often are these procedures followed when a person is being arrested?
When asked about the practice of producing an arrested person before a judge/magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, only a little over half (56%) the police personnel said it was always feasible to meet this requirement (Table 5).
Click to subscribe to our Data newsletter
Table 5 | How feasible/practical is it for police personnel to produce a person before a judge/magistrate within 24 hours of his/her arrest?
Around one-third (30%) of police personnel cited that they need far more time to interrogate the accused. Another corresponding proportion (23%) opined that the first 24 hours were simply insufficient for a proper investigation. (Table 6).
Table 6 | Which is the most important reason for delays in producing an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours?
Similarly, the study examined the feasibility of taking arrested people for a medical examination. Close to six in 10 (57%) said that it was always practical to take an arrested person for a medical exam, while about one-third said it was feasible only sometimes.
Note: A recent Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) and Common Cause survey of 8,276 police personnel sheds light on the acceptance of force, fear tactics, and extrajudicial measures among India’s police personnel. It reveals that a majority of police personnel believe in using intimidation as a law enforcement tool.
Source: Data for the tables were sourced from Lokniti-CSDS. Sanjay Kumar is a professor at CSDS. Devesh Kumar and Priyanka Mittal are researchers with Lokniti-CSDS.
Also read:How the police view custodial torture in India: Data
Published – April 12, 2025 07:00 am IST