Abuse of Power Law in India
Sometimes the misleading presentation in the complaint is based on ulterior motives and not on good faith in such a situation The mere acquittal of the defendant does not satisfy the mental and physical trauma inflicted on him before and during the trial of the criminal proceedings, resulting in the loss of the reputation and personal freedom of him and his family members. Simply because the provisions of the Constitution are intra vires, there is no permit for unscrupulous individuals to release personal vendetta or trigger harassment; Even the mere possibility of abusing a piece of legislation cannot in itself invalidate the bill. The court said that it must be remembered that just because power can sometimes be abused is not a reason to deny the existence of power. The wisdom of man has not yet been able to imagine a government whose power is sufficient to satisfy all his legitimate needs and at the same time incapable of wreaking havoc. After independence, the Indian state, regardless of the political party in power, continued to be absolutist and in no way enacted one of the colonial powers, but promulgated deliberate and more draconian laws that strengthened its powers. These guidelines were adopted taking into account the increase in unlawful arrests and deaths in custody 2. In short, the question of the balance between the rights of the accused and social interests is at the same time complex. The procedure relating to arrest laws provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure3 confers on the police a drastic and excessive power, which is still abused today for personal gain. Unlawful arrests not only result in obstruction of justice, but also violate Articles 211 and 22, fundamental rights that apply to all in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court noted such an abuse of power and an increase in the prevention of arrests and deaths in custody. In collaboration with the Committee on Legal Affairs, it had taken measures to curb such abuses. The Supreme Court issued guidelines in Joginder Kumar v. State U.P. 6. and D.K. Basu v. State Bengal10, which every police officer must follow in case of arrest. In short, arrest and prevention laws are necessary for the proper functioning of society, but these laws need to be subject to stricter judicial review to ensure fair use.
Bibliography Measures to protect against abuse are not provided for in the system because the colonial power that formulated the laws did not want protective measures to keep the powers of its agents unhindered. For them, even an âdarogaâ (sub-inspector) embodied the power of the empire and an attack on it, physical or legal, was equivalent to an attack on the empire itself, which was resisted with power and hand. The Court held that the validity of the provision should be examined for the operation and effectiveness in the general public of the cases and not for exceptions that are less likely to be applicable in rare cases. Abuse affects any power conferred on the competent authority by the malicious and arbitrary exercise of powers. The case was last heard on July 15, 2021, when the Supreme Court lamented the “enormous power of abuse” of India`s sedition law. The Supreme Court has asked the Union government why it should not abolish the colonial rule that the British government once used to suppress freedom movements and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Hindustan Times reported. Abuse means abuse, that is, the use of one`s position for something for which it is not intended. This abuse may be used by illegal or corrupt means or in any manner other than these means.
Abuse of power or abuse of power or misuse of power are terms used to regulate the exercise of power illegally. The existence of a power must be restricted in the area which, in turn, can reasonably, fairly and legally be expected to take place and be regulated in accordance with the law. In an important order on Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a series of clear instructions to counter the strong and growing criminalization of Indian politics, the reluctance of political regimes to accept this threat, the abuse of political power to erase such cases and the undue delay that makes justice not only elusive but often impossible. A bank presided over by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), NV Ramana, has banned states from withdrawing criminal charges against members of parliament (MPEs) and members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) without the consent of the competent Supreme Court.