In the case of Police Brutality, The Supreme Court has upheld a Bombay High Court judgment awarding compensation to the victim.

On June 19, 2015, Somnath was arrested in connection with a theft case and allegedly paraded half-naked with a garland of footwear around his neck by Inspector Kakade. Somnath filed a complaint, but no action was taken against Kakade. Somnath then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which awarded him compensation of Rs.75,000 to be paid by Kakade from his own pocket. The High Court did not direct criminal prosecution of Kakade, citing the six-month limitation period under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

Somnath appealed to the Supreme Court, which found that there was enough evidence to indicate that Kakade had committed excesses against Somnath. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment but increased the compensation to Rs.1,75,000, payable by Kakade. The Court also directed the police forces to scrupulously adhere to constitutional and statutory safeguards and guidelines when arresting and detaining individuals. the Supreme Court denounced his actions and stated that "a zero-tolerance approach towards such high-handed acts needs to be adopted."

The Supreme Court's judgment is a significant step in ensuring the protection of individual liberty and preventing police brutality. The Court's strong denunciation of police excesses and its commitment to a zero-tolerance approach send a clear message that such acts will not be tolerated. The increased compensation awarded to Somnath reflects the Court's recognition of the harm caused by police brutality and its commitment to providing adequate redress to victims.

The Court's emphasis on the need for strict adherence to guidelines and safeguards when arresting and detaining individuals is also crucial. These guidelines and safeguards are designed to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest, unlawful detention, and ill-treatment while in custody. The Court's direction to the police forces to scrupulously adhere to these guidelines and safeguards will help ensure that individuals are treated with dignity and respect while in police custody.
The Supreme Court noted that Inspector Kakade had retired and had already paid compensation, but said it was only due to these "peculiar facts and circumstances" that it was not ordering criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that justice should be tempered with mercy.

In the post script the apex court held that
* “24. It is sad that even today, this Court is forced to restate the principles and directions in D K Basu (supra). Before D K Basu (supra), this Court had expressed its concern as to how best to safeguard the dignity of the individual and balance the same with interests of the State or investigative agency in Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526. In Bhim Singh, MLA v State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1985) 4 SCC 677, this Court noted that police officers are to exhibit greatest regard for personal liberty of citizens and restated the sentiment in Sunil Gupta v State of Madhya Pradesh, (1990) 3 SCC 119. The scenario in Delhi Judicial Service Association v State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 prompted this Court to come down heavily on excess use of force by the police. As such, there will be a general direction to the police forces in all States and Union Territories as also all agencies endowed with the power of arrest and custody to scrupulously adhere to all constitutional and statutory safeguards and the additional guidelines laid down by this Court when a person is arrested by them and/or remanded to their custody.” *

The Supreme Court also reminded police forces nationwide of their duty to protect individual liberty and adhere to Constitutional and statutory safeguards when arresting and detaining individuals.

SOMNATH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Coram: Justice VIKRAM NATH, and Justice AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH.
Dated: MARCH 18, 2024
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/4501/4501201911150151511Judgement18-Mar-2024.pdf