Sujith VS’s custodial torture clip renews debate on policing in Kerala

The release of CCTV footage, secured through a Right to Information request, capturing the brutal custodial assault of Youth Congress leader Sujith VS inside Kunnamkulam Police Station, has jolted Kerala’s collective conscience and laid bare the state’s persistent failure to implement long-promised police reforms.

The incident, which occurred in 2023 but came to public attention only recently, has reopened old wounds and reminded citizens of the dangers that thrive when statutory safeguards are left to gather dust.

Also read: Kerala: Congress to intensify protests over youth leader's 'torture'

Punishment review amid widespread anger

In the grainy but damning video, Sujith can be seen being manhandled and beaten by officers inside the station. The footage has stirred widespread anger, forcing the police to revisit the disciplinary action imposed on the officers involved.

At the time, the punishment had been limited to withholding increments for two years for a sub-inspector and three constables. Now, amid public outrage, the department is debating whether such leniency was justified.

Senior officials have hinted that stiffer penalties, including demotion or dismissal, might be considered, though the officers argue that imposing harsher punishment after the initial proceedings would amount to double jeopardy.

Also read: TN custodial death case: Forensic expert slams hasty cremation | Interview

Pattern cuts across political dispensations

As more cases of police atrocities surface, with citizens increasingly alleging harassment, misconduct and outright violence in custody, the allegations of custodial beating raised by 21-year-old Wushu champion Adil P in Kozhikode stand out as stark examples of how such abuses, once dismissed as aberrations, have hardened into a disturbing pattern.

The outrage is not confined to one party or community. Over a decade ago, in 2012, a student leader of the Students’ Federation of India was beaten in custody under the then United Democratic Front government. That case, much like Sujith’s, was never fully resolved. The recurrence of such episodes across political dispensations has made one thing clear: custodial violence in Kerala is not the failure of a single regime but the symptom of an institutional malaise.

Also read: Govt, courts, civil society should act as one to prevent custodial deaths

A moribund watchdog

Central to this malaise is the silence of the State Security Commission, the very institution that was supposed to guard against such abuse. Born out of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2006 judgment in the Prakash Singh case, the Commission was designed to insulate the police from political interference, hold senior officers and the Home Department accountable, and ensure that citizens’ rights were not trampled upon. Kerala’s Police Act of 2011 incorporated this vision, placing the Commission at the heart of a modernized policing framework. Yet, despite its statutory existence, the Commission has not met for nine years. In practice, it seems non-existent.

“The State Security Commission stands above the Kerala Police structure while being part of it, with powers strong enough to hold the state accountable, perhaps even more than the legislature. Its members include the Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Home Minister, Chief Secretary, State Police Chief, and a judicial representative, and as a statutory body, it is directly answerable to the judiciary. This Commission was the result of more than three decades of struggle by Prakash Singh, a former IPS officer in Uttar Pradesh. Yet the fact that a state government can simply disregard such a provision is appalling. I am not blaming the police here, but the larger truth is troubling. Systems created to ensure accountability themselves seem to lack accountability,” said Harish Vasudevan, Kerala High Court lawyer.

Also read: TN custodial deaths: Human rights activist slams police-politician nexus

No recourse for citizens

The consequences of this abdication are visible in every scandal that emerges from the state’s police stations. Without the Commission, oversight collapses into a closed loop where the department polices itself. Disciplinary action, if taken at all, tends to be symbolic, and genuine accountability arrives only when incontrovertible proof — like a leaked video — is made public. Citizens, who in theory enjoy statutory protections under the Kerala Police Act, find themselves stripped of any effective recourse when their rights are violated.

“Under the Kerala Police disciplinary rules, the inquiry officer and the decision-maker are two separate officials. The inquiry officer is tasked only with recording facts, not recommending action. The decision-maker, who also happens to be the appointing authority of the accused, takes action solely on the basis of the enquiry report, without seeing the underlying facts, testimonies, or documents. This means the outcome often varies from person to person, depending on who the decision-maker is, leaving room for arbitrariness in disciplinary proceedings. There is no minimum prescribed punishment for such acts,” added Haris Vasudevan.

Also read: Exclusive: Ajith Kumar postmortem report describes horrific torture

Intense outrage, muted reaction

Public reaction to the Sujith video has been intense. Social media has been flooded with condemnations, activists have demanded that those responsible be removed from service, and the Opposition has seized the opportunity to accuse the LDF government of shielding errant officers.

Yet, the responses have remained at the level of political sparring. The ruling front has promised that the matter will be examined afresh, while the Opposition has demanded resignations. Neither side has committed to reviving the moribund State Security Commission or strengthening the structures that might prevent the next abuse.

This political reticence is telling. The Prakash Singh reforms were meant to shift power away from the Home Department and towards independent oversight. For any government, whether led by the LDF or the UDF, activating the Commission would mean surrendering a measure of control over postings, transfers, and disciplinary action. Successive administrations, regardless of ideology, have chosen not to do so. The result is that Kerala, a state that prides itself on progressive governance and social justice, continues to operate a police force with fewer checks and balances than envisioned nearly two decades ago.

Also read: TN custodial death: Why theft complainant’s testimony is now under lens

Reforms on paper

For citizens, this contradiction is especially bitter. Kerala is often held up as a model of human development, with its achievements in literacy, healthcare, and welfare widely admired. Yet, when it comes to the rights of those held in custody, the state remains vulnerable. The footage of Sujith’s beating is a chilling reminder of what that vulnerability looks like in practice.

Custodial violence is not an aberration but a recurring symptom of a system where reforms remain on paper and oversight bodies remain dormant. Unless bodies like the State Security Commission are revived and empowered, the cycle will continue, with each new scandal temporarily inflaming outrage before fading into silence.