The Muthanga verdict raises the question of whose death the state chooses to investigate. Examine the accountability gaps in deaths during police operations in India.

In February 2003, police evicted landless Adivasis who had occupied the Muthanga Wildlife Sanctuary in Wayanad, Kerala, to press for land the state had promised them [1]. The recent verdict came after a trial of more than two decades into a constable's death. The death of Adivasi protester Jogi was labelled a "death in police operation" and was never charged or investigated. Whether a death caused by state action is investigated therefore depends on official choice, not legal duty.

Legal and institutional gaps

• Law covers custody only: the BNSS, 2023 (s.196) requires a judicial inquiry into deaths in police custody [2]. Deaths during evictions or crowd control rely on advisory NHRC guidelines.
• Guidelines not followed: the NHRC requires a magisterial inquiry into every death in police action. The dead person's family must take part, and an independent agency such as the State CID should investigate [3]. None of these steps is on record for Jogi.
• Weak oversight: the Police Complaints Authorities ordered in Prakash Singh (2006) [4] remain non-functional or police-dominated in many states.

Gaps in investigation and prosecution

• Police clear themselves: in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014) the Supreme Court held that a claim of self-defence cannot replace an FIR and an independent probe [5]. Yet officials often declare police action "justified" first, which shuts down any inquiry.
• Victim recorded as accused: victims from marginalised groups enter the record as offenders. Courts then ask what they did, not who killed them.
• Unequal consequences: protesters face long criminal trials, while officials face at most departmental action or compensation.
• Delay: two decades to a verdict wears away evidence and witnesses, so neither family gets closure.

Implications

• These gaps weaken the guarantees of Articles 14 and 21 and deepen tribal distrust of the state.

Way forward

• A law requiring a judicial inquiry and an automatic FIR in every death in police action.
• Time-bound independent investigation (CID/SIT), reported to the NHRC [3].
• Independent, working Police Complaints Authorities [4] and body-worn cameras.
• Tackle the root cause by settling land claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which covers Sanctuaries and National Parks [6].

Muthanga shows that India does not lack rules on deaths in police operations; it applies them selectively. Making the NHRC and PUCL safeguards binding law, enforced by independent bodies, and resolving tribal land claims would mean every such death is investigated equally. That would honour the Constitution's promise of equal protection and the right to life.