The Hindu Editorial Analysis
22 August 2025
Justice is not about ‘teaching someone a lesson’
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic :GS 2: Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability
Context
The judiciary must resist justifying custodial brutality, even when it is presented under the moral pretext of correction or deterrence.
Introduction
In a recent custodial death case in Chhattisgarh, the High Court made an observation that should alarm anyone who values the rule of law. The Court noted that the police officers responsible seemed motivated to “teach a lesson” to the victim for alleged public misbehaviour, highlighting a grave breach of accountability and justice. The facts are as disturbing as the language used. A Dalit man, arrested for alleged misbehaviour, died in custody just hours after a medical check reported no injuries, yet the postmortem revealed 26 wounds, exposing severe police brutality. While the trial court convicted four officers of murder, the High Court reduced the charge to culpable homicide, reasoning that there was no direct intent to kill, though the officers had full knowledge that their assault could cause death.
Judicial Reasoning and Custodial Violence
- A statement in the High Court’s opinion reflects a deeply problematic institutional mindset that rationalises state violence as a tolerable tool for discipline.
- The judiciary must resist justifying police brutality, especially under the moral guise of correction or deterrence.
- “Teaching a lesson” is neither a constitutional principle nor a standard of justice, but rooted in vigilante logicwhere violence begets violence and law is enforced through fear, not rights or procedures.
- The conceptual framing of custodial violence matters more than sentence commutation, as it risks normalising torture by portraying it as misguided discipline rather than systemic failure.
- Language shapes legal reasoning, which in turn shapes policy; accepting teaching a lesson as a partial justification emboldens officers and signals that future actions may be seen as excessive zeal, not unlawful conduct.
Violence as a caste-coded enforcement
- The identity of the victim, a Scheduled Caste member, is often erased in legal frameworks.
- The trial court acquitted the prime accused under the SC/ST Act (1989), and the High Court did not intervene.
- By demanding specific proof of caste motivation, the Court ignored the lived reality of caste power.
- The death of a Dalit man beaten in police custody by upper caste officers in rural India reflects a broader pattern of caste-coded enforcement, not an isolated incident.
- India’s jurisprudence on the SC/ST Act is narrowly interpreted:
- Courts require explicit evidence that violence occurred because of caste.
- This overlooks the role of structural power in motivating and enabling violence.
- Demanding overt slurs or declared caste intent often results in denial of justice in cases the Act was meant to address.
- Custodial violence in India is widely recognized:
- Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs State of West Bengal, State of U.P., Munshi Singh Gautam vs State of M.P.) stress the need for procedural safeguards, transparency, and limits on police force.
- Despite these guidelines, deaths in custody continue at alarming rates, disproportionately affecting Dalits, Adivasis, and the poor.
- Compliance is sporadic, enforcement weak, and investigations are often conducted by the very institutions implicated in abuse.
The path for judicial integrity
- Judicial language matters: Courts must hold individuals accountable and scrutinize institutional norms that enable violence.
- Phrases like “to teach a lesson” imply that state brutality is sometimes understandable, sending a dangerous message that certain people may deserve violence.
- The police are constitutional functionaries, not agents of correction through coercion; justifying custodial violence for minor offences, such as public nuisance, blurs legal boundaries.
- “Teaching a lesson” is not justice; it undermines a system based on proportionality, dignity, and due process. Deterrence must come from legal punishment, not state-sanctioned force.
- Courts that validate such reasoning risk weakening the constitutional order they are sworn to uphold.
- Structural change, not symbolic outrage, is essential:
- Custodial violence must always be recognized as criminal, never disciplinary.
- The SC/ST Act must be rigorously enforced wherever social power is weaponized.
- Independent accountability mechanisms must be strengthened, and procedural safeguards made enforceable.
Conclusion
Most importantly, the judiciary must not provide moral cover to extra-legal instincts. The notion that public misbehaviour warrants private punishment is not justice, but a form of authoritarianism in slow motion. A Constitution founded on dignity, equality, and the rule of law cannot coexist with a justice system that condones “lessons” written in bruises.