The Haryana Human Rights Commission (HHRC) has strongly criticised the Haryana Police and the state home department for what it termed as “merely symbolic and negligible” punishments awarded to two Pinjore cops for the alleged illegal detention and custodial torture of an 18-year-old.
The teen had been picked up in June last year on charges of using a firearm for celebratory firing following a panchayat election victory.
The Kalka sub-divisional judicial magistrate (SDJM), in an order dated July 16, 2025, had declared the arrest illegal and subsequently recorded the visible injuries on the teen’s body, confirming custodial violence.
On December 19, the commission directed the Haryana director general of police (DGP) to submit a report on the action taken against inspector Jagdish Chander and sub-inspector Yadwinder Singh, both posted at the Pinjore police station at the time. The DGP, in his report, had stated that both officers were found guilty of custodial torture, in the departmental proceedings, a fact also admitted by the home department in its reply.
On the basis of the final report submitted by inquiry officer, Amrinder Singh, who is the additional superintendent of police, Yamunanagar, inspector Jagdish Chander (now retired) was punished with a reduction of 2% per month from his pension for a period of 12 months, while sub-inspector Yadwinder Singh was awarded a stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect.
The commission stated that the action taken was “woefully inadequate”. It observed, “Awarding minor administrative penalties such as temporary pension reduction and stoppage of increments effectively treats custodial torture as a routine lapse, thereby fostering a culture of impunity within the police force. Such conduct is intolerable in a state governed by the rule of law.”
The commission directed the Haryana DGP to file a detailed explanation as to why serious constitutional violations like custodial torture and illegal confinement were met with trivial punitive consequences, and to outline institutional reforms, safeguards, and preventive mechanisms to prevent recurrence of such violations. It clarified that the response must be substantive and not perfunctory.
Home dept told to justify denial of compensation
Separately, the additional chief secretary, home, has been ordered to depute a senior officer, not below the rank of joint secretary and fully conversant with the facts, to appear in person before the commission on the next date of hearing to justify the denial of compensation.
In a reply dated January 8, the additional chief secretary, home, had stated that the victim was “not entitled to compensation” and that it was not the responsibility of the department to compensate victims of state excesses. The commission stated that this stance reflects a highly callous, evasive, and dismissive attitude towards human rights violations committed through the state machinery.
Deepanshu Bansal, counsel for the complainant, objected to the home department’s stand and drew attention to settled law and the statutory mandate under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, which empowers and obligates the commission to recommend compensation in cases where human rights violations by public authorities are established.
The matter is scheduled for hearing on January 30.
