A democracy is tested not merely by how it punishes crime, but by how it protects the rights of those accused of committing it. Citizens have a constitutional right to express dissent and participate in peaceful protests. The Allahabad High Court’s decision to quash the preventive detention of activist Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act is a timely reminder that peaceful dissent cannot be treated as a threat to the State merely because it is inconvenient to those in power.

The larger question, however, concerns the conduct of the police and investigating agencies. The police may arrest a person when the law permits it and may use reasonable force in circumstances where it is necessary. But they have no authority to punish an accused. Parading a suspect on the street after tying him with ropes, beating him with lathis, abusing him in a police station or using physical coercion to extract a confession is not investigation. It is an abuse of power.

The constitutional position is clear. An accused person is not a convicted criminal. The task of the police is to investigate, collect admissible evidence and place the case before a court. Guilt must ultimately be established through due process. The Supreme Court, through landmark judgments such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, has laid down safeguards against custodial abuse and made it clear that arrest does not extinguish a person’s fundamental rights.

Modern criminal investigation should depend on forensic evidence, DNA, fingerprints, CCTV footage, digital evidence, financial trails, scientific examination of crime scenes and credible witness testimony. Extracting a confession through violence is not a substitute for professional investigation. It is often evidence of investigative weakness. The real challenge is therefore not merely training individual policemen, but transforming an institutional culture that sometimes rewards coercion, shortcuts and confession-based investigation.

Political interference, inadequate staffing, pressure to solve cases quickly, weak forensic capacity and insufficient accountability can all contribute to such practices. A police uniform does not place its wearer above the law. Power must always be accompanied by responsibility.

Accountability is therefore essential. In cases of illegal arrest, custodial violence, fabricated evidence or deliberately false prosecution, an independent investigation should follow. Where wrongdoing is established, criminal and departmental action should be taken against the responsible officials. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Nilabati Behera, Rudul Sah and Bhim Singh have established that constitutional courts can award compensation for violations of fundamental rights. Such remedies must become meaningful rather than exceptional.

The judiciary too has a critical responsibility. Magistrates should not treat remand as a routine administrative exercise. Before authorising custody, they must ask why arrest was necessary, whether further custody is genuinely required for investigation, whether the accused has suffered injuries and whether the statutory requirements have been followed. The mere submission of a police report cannot replace judicial scrutiny.

India’s enormous undertrial population exposes another structural failure. The Supreme Court recognised in Hussainara Khatoon that speedy trial is part of the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21. Years spent in prison before conviction can destroy livelihoods, families and reputations even when an accused is eventually acquitted. The case of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba is a sobering reminder. After years of incarceration in a Maoist-links case, he was acquitted by the Bombay High Court in 2024 after the prosecution case was found legally unsustainable. No subsequent acquittal can restore years already lost.

Reform must therefore be systemic. Police investigations should be insulated from improper political influence. CCTV and audio-video recording in custody, regular medical examinations, digital case diaries and stronger forensic systems should be universal. Police performance should be measured not simply by arrests or charge sheets, but by the quality and reliability of evidence. Police Complaints Authorities must function independently and effectively.

Judicial scrutiny of remand and prolonged detention must also become more rigorous. Delayed trials should be periodically reviewed, with greater emphasis on bail where continued detention is unjustified. Where illegal detention or custodial abuse is established, compensation should be accompanied by individual accountability.

The issue is not “police versus citizens”. It is the rule of law versus the abuse of power. Police have the power to arrest, not to punish. Magistrates have the power to authorise custody, not to mechanically deprive people of liberty. Governments have the power to enforce laws, not to override the Constitution.

A uniform is not above the law. Authority is not above accountability. And the State is not above the citizen’s constitutional rights.

The true measure of a democracy is not how efficiently it can imprison a suspect, but how effectively it can prevent an innocent person from being destroyed by the machinery of the State.