Harassing the Public in the Guise of Investigation May Lead to Anarchy: Analysis of Kantamaneni Ravishankar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

At times, when personal liberty has become a dream for many citizens in India, a judgement like this brings a ray of hope, for one can live with hope even in dungeons before hopelessness kills them. In 2003, R.K. Raghavan had observed that the police would continue to do the politicians’ bidding unless certain basic reforms were enacted. Thus, only after untying the knot that keeps the politician and the police together, India will have rule of law, and justice for all. However, unless criminal law reforms question the power imbalances in the system, the exercise will only end up ‘beautifying the facades.’ The complete freedom enjoyed by the police forces must be diminished by modern reforms by fixing strict and vicarious liability against policemen, for the sake of liberty and the rule of law. One must ask, what lies in law for the victims of indiscriminate policing or police brutality? The Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India directed the States to establish Police Complaints Authorities at the State and district levels, so that departmental or criminal action against a delinquent police officer would be binding, among several other directions for police reforms. However, the directions of the Supreme Court have fallen on deaf ears. Thus, are the police liable for ignorance of the law, or are they challenging the legitimacy of the Supreme Court ruling(s)? In such a deplorable state of policing, the Courts often come to the rescue of individuals being targeted, one such case being the topic of our discussion herein, viz. Kantamaneni Ravishankar v. State of Andhra Pradesh. I shall discuss the judgement in its entirety and retrieve as it is the authorities relied upon therein, in the subsequent parts of this article.