Interrogation at odd hours of the night amounts to violation of human rights

Asmita Kuvalekar | Government Law College, Mumbai | 11^th April 2020. 

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA VS RAJENDRA SINGH AND OS (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO 10707 OF 2011) 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

This writ petition in the Patna High Court seeks to upturn the order of the Chairperson, Human Rights Commission (Patna), wherein the Commission declared the petitioner responsible for the violation of human rights during a search and seizure procedure against the Respondent. According to the records of the procedure, interrogation of one, Mr. Rajendra Singh continued till 3.30 in the morning. Mr. Singh’s complaint also detailed a 2 days total confinement inside the house as well as the officials’ refusal to allow them to cook their own food during this time. Misbehaviour, torture and theft was also alleged against the officials. 

The Commission held that there had been a 36 hour long interrogation with no breaks and there was finally a temporary suspension at 3.30 am. It was held that such treatment is cruel and undermines internationally conceived human rights obligations. 

In this case, the Patna High Court is called upon to determine the legality of the Commission’s order. 

ISSUE: 

1. Does uninterrupted interrogation for long hours amount to a Human Rights violation? 

JUDGEMENT: 

The Court examined the various arguments put forth by counsel for the Petitioners. First and foremost, it dismissed any unnecessary questions of jurisdiction of the Commission and declared that the impugned decision was not Coram non-judice. In that regard, it also explained that failure on Mr. Singh’s part to notify the State Human Rights Commission of his previous, undecided complaint to the National Human Rights Commission and other authorities on the same grounds is wrong but not enough to vitiate the whole proceeding. 

On the principal contention regarding long uninterrupted interrogations, the Court evaluated the findings of the Commission in substantial detail. It took aid of the wording of Question no 15 from the repository of questions asked during the interrogation and deduced that at the time of asking that question, 36 hours had already gone by. Moreover, the sole break, the date and time endorsed as much by the Officer’s signature was taken at 3.30. 

Thus, the Commission’s opinion on interrogation during odd hours was rightly upheld by the Court. It explained that subjecting a person to gruelling questions at an hour when he is normally expected to sleep is inhuman, and results in physical and mental torture. Sleep deprivation as a means to interrogate cannot plausibly fall under the modern standards of internationally recognized human rights. It is incumbent upon every statute and every executive to respect the same. 

The petitioners’ claims that breaks not shown on record is not conclusive proof that no breaks were actually taken and that it is humanly impossible for an Officer to interrogate for so long were duly considered. In that respect, the Court held that even if those arguments were conceded to, the fact that the questions continued till 3.30 am is undisputed. That fact alone is enough to supersede all arguments, keeping in mind the importance of human dignity. 

This judgement carefully underlines the oft-repeated legal principle that just because a person is at odds with law doesn’t mean that his rights are taken away. All human rights considerations continue to apply equally and unequivocally to the accused and the convicts albeit with necessary modifications. 

Lastly, this decision analysed whether the petitioners were protected because of the absence of a maximum period in search and seizure manuals for the duration of interrogations. It was held that no such protection could be afforded. All acts of the Executive have to be in accordance with law but not at the cost of the country’s Human Rights obligations. Thus, the manuals may theoretically permit a non-stop interrogation but it is for the Executives to act in a manner that ensures basic human welfare and dignity of a person while subjecting him/her to due process. It is undeniable that 36+ hours of any kind of investigation is burdensome and unfair to the human body and mind. Furthermore, usual hours of sleep should always be respected in such situations. In light of the fact that the Petitioners failed to offer a reason for why interrogation was not deferred to morning hours, the Court dismissed the Petition with a clear warning to the concerned Officials.