Speaking on Friday at the launch of former security secretary Yashovardhan Azad’s book Policing the Republic in New Delhi, Justice Bhuyan said he was dismayed to see young officers of the Indian Police Service personally assaulting protesters and demonstrators. “This is something very, very distressing to observe,” he said.
“The detachment expected of police officers somehow seems to be disappearing, and this is indeed a matter of grave concern,” the judge added, calling for professionalism, impartiality and adherence to constitutional principles in the exercise of police powers.
His remarks followed scrutiny of police action during student-led protests at Jantar Mantar in July, including demonstrations connected with the NEET examination controversy. Protesters had alleged excessive force, while images and videos of confrontations between police personnel and demonstrators circulated widely.
The July 20 demonstration involved students protesting over the alleged NEET paper leak and seeking to march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament. Police personnel detained protesters as barricades were used to prevent the march from proceeding beyond the area.
Justice Bhuyan said effective maintenance of law and order did not require excessive force or infringement of human rights. He stressed that a police officer encountered on the street represents the authority of the state for ordinary citizens and that the credibility of the force therefore depends on lawful and impartial conduct.
“For most common people, a policeman on the street wearing a whistle and a lathi represents the power and authority of the state,” he said. Citizens who feel wronged turn to the police for assistance, making it essential for the force to maintain public confidence.
He said that credibility could be sustained only by strictly adhering to the Constitution, functioning as a truly professional force, acting impartially and with courage, maintaining integrity and upholding secular principles and the rule of law.
Justice Bhuyan also used the address to flag custodial torture and deaths, describing custodial death as one of the worst crimes that can occur in a civilised society governed by law. Referring to constitutional protections and Supreme Court jurisprudence, he said torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment could not be justified during investigation, interrogation or detention.
The judge referred to the Supreme Court’s 1997 ruling in DK Basu versus State of West Bengal, which laid down safeguards governing arrest and interrogation and recognised the need to compensate victims of custodial rights violations. He posed the question of whether a citizen loses fundamental rights upon arrest and said the answer had to be an emphatic no.
He also criticised extra-judicial killings, saying “encounter philosophy is a criminal philosophy” and cannot form part of legitimate policing. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that alleged fake encounters must be independently investigated and that police officers found responsible cannot claim immunity merely because they acted in uniform.
Justice Bhuyan linked these concerns to the wider need for police reform and warned against political interference in law-enforcement functioning. His comments placed emphasis on institutional autonomy, accountability and constitutional restraint rather than the immediate political controversy surrounding individual protest incidents.
The intervention came days after Justice Bhuyan, speaking at the National Law University Delhi convocation, said students could not be threatened with punitive action for asking questions or expressing a different point of view. He described such punishment as unconstitutional and a misuse of power and office, and said democratic institutions must tolerate disagreement rather than treat dissent as something to be silenced.
At that event, he said a constitutional democracy does not demand uniformity of thought and that its maturity is tested by how institutions respond to opinions that are unpopular, inconvenient or difficult.
