State Response to Human Rights:
Role of Police, Administration, Army and Paramilitary Forces
(Indian Context)
The response of the state to human rights concerns is a decisive factor in determining whether rights remain constitutional ideals or become lived realities. In any modern state, institutions such as the police, civil administration, army, and paramilitary forces are entrusted with maintaining order, security, and governance. At the same time, these very institutions possess coercive power, which makes them central actors in both the protection and violation of human rights.
In the Indian context, the relationship between state power and human rights is deeply complex. While the Constitution mandates the protection of life, liberty, and dignity, the everyday functioning of security and administrative institutions often reveals tensions between authority and accountability, security and liberty, order and justice.
The State and Human Rights: A Conceptual Overview
The modern state is the primary duty-bearer of human rights. Unlike non-state actors, the state has:
- Monopoly over the legitimate use of force
- Authority to make and enforce laws
- Responsibility to protect citizens from rights violations
Human rights law does not deny the necessity of state power. Instead, it seeks to discipline and regulate power so that authority is exercised within legal, ethical, and constitutional limits.
In India, this framework is rooted in the Constitution of India, which balances state authority with fundamental rights and judicial oversight.
Role of the Police and Human Rights
Police as Protectors of Rights
The police are the most visible and immediate arm of the state. Their primary responsibilities—crime prevention, investigation, and maintenance of public order—are directly linked to the protection of:
- Right to life and personal security
- Right to equality before law
- Right to access justice
Ideally, a rights-respecting police force ensures that citizens can exercise their freedoms without fear.
Police and Human Rights Violations
At the same time, the police are frequently associated with human rights violations such as:
- Custodial violence and deaths
- Illegal detention and torture
- Abuse of preventive detention laws
- Discriminatory policing against marginalized groups
Such violations are particularly serious because they occur under state custody, where individuals are most vulnerable.
Structural issues—overwork, political interference, lack of training, and impunity—often contribute to these violations.
Role of the Civil Administration
Administration as an Enabler of Rights
The civil administration translates constitutional rights into policies, welfare schemes, and public services. Access to education, health, food security, housing, and social justice depends heavily on administrative efficiency and integrity.
In this sense, administration plays a crucial role in realizing economic, social, and cultural rights, which are essential for substantive human dignity.
Administrative Failure and Rights Denial
However, administrative actions can also result in human rights violations through:
- Bureaucratic apathy and delays
- Corruption and exclusion
- Arbitrary use of discretionary power
- Failure to implement court orders and welfare laws
Denial of entitlements often amounts to indirect but systematic human rights violations, especially for vulnerable populations.
Role of the Army and Human Rights
Army and National Security
The army is primarily responsible for defending the nation against external threats. In certain situations, it is also deployed internally during insurgencies, border conflicts, or severe internal disturbances.
From a human rights perspective, the army operates under a distinct logic of national security and discipline, which often limits transparency and civilian oversight.
Human Rights Concerns
When deployed in internal security roles, the army has been associated with allegations of:
- Excessive use of force
- Civilian casualties
- Arbitrary detention and searches
The challenge lies in reconciling military necessity with the protection of civilian rights. Human rights frameworks insist that even in exceptional circumstances, minimum standards of humanity must be upheld.
Role of Paramilitary Forces
Paramilitary Forces and Internal Security
Paramilitary forces operate between civilian policing and the army. They are often deployed in:
- Counter-insurgency operations
- Border security
- Communal disturbances and riots
Their role has expanded significantly in response to internal security challenges.
Human Rights Challenges
Paramilitary forces face human rights-related criticisms similar to the police and army:
- Excessive force during crowd control
- Lack of accountability mechanisms
- Prolonged deployment in civilian areas
Their hybrid role often creates ambiguity regarding jurisdiction, responsibility, and oversight, complicating human rights protection.
Legal Framework and Accountability
The Indian legal system provides multiple safeguards to regulate state power:
- Fundamental Rights under the Constitution
- Judicial review and public interest litigation
- Statutory human rights institutions
The Supreme Court of India has played a key role in laying down guidelines on arrest, detention, custodial violence, and use of force, reinforcing that state agents are not above the law.
Security, Emergency, and Human Rights
A recurring tension in state response to human rights arises during:
- Emergencies
- Counter-terrorism operations
- Insurgency and internal conflict
States often justify extraordinary powers in the name of security. Human rights theory acknowledges the need for security but insists on:
- Proportionality
- Legality
- Accountability
Certain rights—such as protection from torture—remain non-derogable, even during emergencies.
Human Rights Training and Institutional Reform
Effective state response to human rights requires:
- Training of police and security forces in human rights norms
- Clear rules of engagement and standard operating procedures
- Independent oversight and complaint mechanisms
- Protection for whistleblowers and victims
Institutional reform is essential to transform coercive institutions into rights-respecting public services.
Democracy, Rule of Law, and State Power
The conduct of police, administration, army, and paramilitary forces reflects the quality of democracy. When state power operates without accountability, human rights violations become normalized.
A democratic state is defined not by the absence of force, but by the legal and ethical restraint placed upon its use.
Conclusion
The state’s response to human rights through its police, administration, army, and paramilitary forces embodies a fundamental paradox: the same institutions that protect rights also possess the capacity to violate them.
In India, constitutional safeguards, judicial oversight, and human rights institutions provide a strong normative framework. However, persistent gaps in accountability, training, and institutional culture continue to challenge effective human rights protection.
Ultimately, the protection of human rights depends not on weakening the state, but on civilizing state power—ensuring that authority is exercised in accordance with law, dignity, and democratic accountability. A rights-respecting state is not one without force, but one in which force is always subordinate to justice.
References
- Constitution of India
- Baxi, Upendra. The Future of Human Rights
- Austin, Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation
- National Human Rights Commission Reports
- Supreme Court of India Judgments on Custodial Justice and Police Reforms
