"Stop and frisk" policing practices, also known as "stop and search" or "stop and question," have been a controversial topic in the United States for decades. This practice allows police officers to temporarily detain and search individuals they suspect of criminal activity without necessarily having probable cause for arrest.

In this article, we will examine the Indian constitutional implications of "stop and frisk" policing practices. We will explore how these practices align with or conflict with the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, and discuss the potential consequences for individuals and communities affected by this type of policing.

The article will also look at the comparative scenario with US and other countries. Overall, the article will provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal and ethical issues surrounding "stop and frisk" policing practices in India.

The history of "stop and frisk" policing practices in India

"Stop and frisk" policing practices, also known as "stop and search" or "Terry stops," refer to the power of law enforcement officers to temporarily detain, question, and search individuals if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The history of this practice in India is not well documented, but it is likely to have existed in some form since the colonial era. During the British colonial rule, various laws such as the Prevention of Sedition Act and the Indian Police Act were enacted, granting police broad powers of arrest and search.

After independence, the power of police to detain and search individuals has been codified in various laws, including the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code. The exact nature and extent of the power varies depending on the jurisdiction, but it is generally seen as an important tool in preventing and combating crime.

However, like in many other countries, the use of "stop and frisk" practices in India has been controversial, with critics arguing that it is often used as a tool for harassment and abuse of power, particularly against marginalized communities and minority groups. As a result, there have been calls for greater regulation and oversight of the practice to ensure its proper and lawful use.

The legal framework surrounding "stop and frisk" in India

The legal framework surrounding "stop and frisk" in India is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 and the Indian Constitution. Section 41 of the CrPC gives police officers the power to detain and search a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a cognizable offense. This power is commonly referred to as "stop and frisk."

The Indian Supreme Court has provided guidelines for the use of this power in various landmark cases, including the case of MP Sharma vs. Satish Chandra (1954). The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of ensuring that the stop and frisk power is exercised in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner and that individual rights are respected.

The guidelines established by the Supreme Court for the use of stop and frisk include:

1. Reasonable suspicion:

   The police officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a cognizable offense.
    

2. Non-arbitrary:

   The stop and frisk must be carried out in a non-arbitrary manner and must not be based on discrimination or personal biases.
    

3. Respect for individual rights:

   The individual's rights, including their right to privacy and personal liberty, must be respected during the stop and frisk.
    

4. Documentation:

   The stop and frisk must be documented, and the reason for the search must be recorded.
    

5. Proportionality:

   The extent of the search must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense suspected.

In addition to the guidelines established by the Supreme Court, the Indian Constitution also provides several protections for individual rights, including the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), the protection against arbitrary detention (Article 22), and the protection of personal freedom (Article 19).

It is important to note that the use of stop and frisk powers in India has been subject to criticism and controversy in recent years, with some arguing that the power is often abused by police officers, particularly against marginalized communities and minorities. The Indian government has taken steps to regulate the use of stop and frisk, such as introducing measures to improve transparency and accountability in its use.

In conclusion, the legal framework surrounding "stop and frisk" in India is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Constitution. The Indian Supreme Court has established guidelines for the use of this power to ensure that it is exercised in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner and that individual rights are respected. However, the use of stop and frisk powers in India remains a controversial issue and is subject to ongoing criticism and debate.

The constitutional implications of "stop and frisk" practices in India

The constitutional implications of "stop and frisk" practices in India can be seen through the interplay between the provisions of the Indian Constitution and the legal framework surrounding stop and frisk as established by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Supreme Court.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides for the right to life and personal liberty, and Article 22 provides for the protection against arbitrary detention. These provisions, along with Article 19, which protects personal freedom, provide a basis for the protection of individual rights during stop and frisk practices.

However, the Indian Supreme Court has held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not absolute and can be restricted in certain circumstances, such as the maintenance of law and order and the prevention of crime. In this context, the court has established guidelines for the use of stop and frisk powers, including the requirement for reasonable suspicion, non-arbitrary conduct, and respect for individual rights, documentation, and proportionality.

In recent years, the use of stop and frisk powers in India has been subject to criticism, with some alleging that it is often abused by police officers, particularly against marginalized communities and minorities. This has led to concerns about the potential violation of individual rights, including the right to life and personal liberty and the right to freedom from arbitrary detention.

The impact of "stop and frisk" on marginalized communities in India

Stop and frisk" refers to a law enforcement tactic that allows police officers to stop and search individuals on the street for weapons or illegal items without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion. The impact of this practice on marginalized communities has been widely criticized for perpetuating racial profiling and systemic racism.

Studies have shown that the majority of individuals targeted by stop and frisk are people of colour, particularly Black and Latino men, even though they are no more likely to be carrying contraband than white individuals. This has resulted in increased distrust and resentment towards law enforcement in these communities, leading to further marginalization.

Additionally, the intrusive and sometimes violent nature of stop and frisk encounters can result in physical harm and psychological trauma, further exacerbating tensions between marginalized communities and the police.

Furthermore, the disproportionate targeting of marginalized communities has resulted in a disproportionate number of arrests and criminal records, leading to increased barriers to employment, housing, and other opportunities, perpetuating the cycle of poverty and marginalization. The impact of stop and frisk on marginalized communities has been overwhelmingly negative, perpetuating systemic racism and exacerbating tensions between these communities and law enforcement. It is crucial for policymakers to critically examine and address the harmful consequences of this practice.

Comparisons to "stop and frisk" practices in other countries

Stop and frisk practices refer to the power of law enforcement officials to briefly detain and search individuals without a warrant when they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This practice is implemented in many countries, including India, the United States, and the United Kingdom. However, the implementation of this practice varies in different countries, and the extent to which it is used, as well as its legal basis, also varies.

In India, stop and frisk practices are regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows police officers to detain and search individuals when they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The extent to which this practice is used in India is unclear, but it is generally considered to be infrequent.

In the United States, stop and frisk practices have been a controversial issue for many years, with some advocates arguing that they are an effective tool in reducing crime, while others argue that they are discriminatory and violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The practice has been used extensively in New York City, where the New York Police Department has been criticized for its disproportionate use of stop and frisk against minority communities.

In the United Kingdom, stop and frisk practices are regulated by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The extent to which this practice is used in the UK is unclear, but it is generally considered to be less controversial than in the United States.

Stop and frisk practices are used in various countries, but the extent to which they are used, as well as their legal basis, vary from country to country. In India, stop and frisk practices are regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, while in the United States, they are a controversial issue. In the United Kingdom, stop and frisk practices are regulated by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Conclusion and recommendations for future policy
Stop and frisk policies, which allow law enforcement officers to briefly detain, search, and question individuals suspected of criminal activity, have been controversial in many countries, including India. The policy is meant to help prevent crime and protect public safety, but it has also been criticized for violating civil rights and for its potential to perpetuate racial biases in the criminal justice system.

Based on current data and evidence, it is recommended that the Indian government re-evaluate and reform the stop and frisk policy to ensure that it is effective in preventing crime while also respecting the rights of citizens. This can be done by implementing stronger oversight mechanisms, such as increased accountability and transparency, and training officers to avoid racial profiling. Additionally, collecting and regularly analysing data on stops and frisks can help identify and address any potential biases in the system.

In conclusion, while stop and frisk policies can play an important role in crime prevention, it is important to ensure that they are implemented fairly and equitably to avoid violating citizens' rights. Reforms to the policy should prioritize accountability, transparency, and the minimization of racial biases.

References:

• https://main.sci.gov.in/
• https://ijcl.nalsar.ac.in/www.ilikelaw.org
• https://bprd.nic.in/content/3656_1_INDIANPOLICEJOURNAL.aspx
• https://indianjournalofcriminology.in/
• https://www.jstor.org/journal/jindilawinst

Written By:

1. Indrajeet Singh, Final year student at Dr. RML-NLU Lucknow (U.P)
2. Amritanshu Pathak, Final year student at Dr. RML-NLU Lucknow (U.P)