Chandigarh: After the Punjab and Haryana High Court slammed the Punjab and Haryana High Court for registering serious criminal cases against youth on the basis of ‘colonial era policing’ and unsubstantiated ‘secret information’, the Punjab Police has directed that coercive action against youth with clean background will be taken only on the basis of clear and objective evidence.
The police have also clarified that their identity will not be published in the media ordinarily. Apart from this, their educational institutions and employers will also not be informed about the investigation unless it is absolutely necessary.
In a major change sensitive to children and youth, the police have directed that the youth—especially those in the age group of 18-20—will be protected from public exposure, institutional harm and academic disruption during the investigation.
The circular, dated April 3, was placed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court during the hearing of a criminal case. It lays down 17 broad operational guidelines for field officers to create a protocol so that the investigation process does not become a punishment for the youth who are under suspicion for the first time.
These 17 orders have clear safeguards, “The identity of such persons shall not be disclosed to the media unless legally required,” and educational institutions or employers “shall not be informed unless required by law or under specific directions of the court.”
The circular is crucial for the security of their digital and academic lives as it states that “seizure of personal electronic devices shall be limited only to extracting the necessary data,” and directs that these devices be returned immediately to avoid disruption of academic or professional activities. It also emphasizes that academic continuity should be maintained and the Investigating Officer (IO) should ensure that there is no unnecessary disruption in studies.
Besides, appearances at police stations will be scheduled at reasonable intervals, keeping in mind the impact on classes, examinations and early career.
The circular states, “Custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the nature and seriousness of the charges levelled against such a person. If such a person cooperates in the investigation and the evidence is there in documentary form, custodial interrogation may be deemed unnecessary. Reasons justifying the need for custodial interrogation should be recorded.”
The circular directs that coercive action should be taken only on the basis of clear and objective evidence available on record and in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of “Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar”. The Supreme Court judgment cited states that “the police cannot arrest merely because an offence is serious.”
It also mandates that the investigating officer must justify any arrest by recording the reasons for which it is necessary and encourages the use of the statutory notice process. It notes that “if a person complies with a notice to appear, the arrest is ordinarily deemed unnecessary.”
The circular also emphasizes the rigor of evidence and clarifies that no person should be named as an accused merely on the basis of a statement made by a co-accused without any independent corroboration. It states that “such statements in the absence of any corroborating evidence are a weak form of evidence.”
The officers have been directed to try to collect physical evidence linking the person to the main or other co-accused, including mobile or WhatsApp communications, location data at the time of the alleged crime, or any other corroborating material. It has also been made mandatory to verify and document the absence of criminal antecedents before any arrest, search or seizure.
All such cases will be subject to periodic monitoring reviews by the heads of field units to ensure impartiality and accountability. The circular clarifies that where evidence remains insufficient after the review, “appropriate steps should be taken to remove the names or close the case without delay.”
Case diaries should clearly reflect “due consideration of age, background and absence of background”, and any alleged non-cooperation should be documented before coercive action is taken.
The directions were placed before the High Court after Justice Sanjay Vashisht expressed concern that the involvement of young boys in criminal cases was leading to unnecessary criminal action and the potential destruction of their future. The circular addresses this concern by inculcating proportionality, dignity and procedural fairness in day-to-day policing.