Police Warned Over Viral Clip Threatening Citizens with 'Bangladeshi' Tag
Cop warned for threatening citizens over 'Bangladeshi' origin; police confirm no formal document verification orders.
Photo by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona
A Delhi Police officer was issued a warning after a viral video showed him threatening people, questioning their Indian citizenship, and suggesting they were from Bangladesh, stating 'machine can tell'. The police department clarified that no formal orders have been issued for such document verification drives, and an inquiry has been ordered into the incident.
This event raises serious concerns about police conduct, potential harassment of citizens, and the sensitive issue of citizenship verification, especially in the context of debates around the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). For UPSC aspirants, this highlights the importance of police accountability, human rights, and the proper implementation of citizenship laws.
Key Facts
Delhi Police officer seen in a viral clip threatening people about their citizenship.
Officer suggested a 'machine can tell' if they are from Bangladesh.
Delhi Police clarified no formal orders for document verification drives.
An inquiry has been ordered into the incident.
UPSC Exam Angles
Constitutional provisions related to citizenship (Part II, Articles 5-11).
The Citizenship Act, 1955 and its amendments, including the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019.
National Register of Citizens (NRC) and its legal and social implications.
Police accountability, reforms, and human rights in the context of law enforcement.
Rule of Law, due process, and the protection of fundamental rights (e.g., Article 14, 21, 22).
Ethical conduct and integrity in public service, particularly for law enforcement agencies.
Visual Insights
Location of Police Incident & Citizenship Concerns
This map highlights Delhi, the location of the incident where a police officer threatened citizens with 'Bangladeshi' tags. It underscores the geographical context of police conduct and citizenship verification debates in India's capital.
Loading interactive map...
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding citizenship in India: 1. The Constitution of India provides for both single citizenship and dual citizenship for persons of Indian origin. 2. The Citizenship Act, 1955, provides for acquisition of Indian citizenship by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation, and incorporation of territory. 3. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is a register containing names of all genuine Indian citizens as per the Citizenship Act, 1955. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: C
Statement 1 is incorrect. The Constitution of India provides only for single citizenship (Article 9), not dual citizenship. While Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status offers certain benefits, it is not full citizenship. Statement 2 is correct. These are the five ways to acquire Indian citizenship as per the Citizenship Act, 1955. Statement 3 is correct. The NRC is intended to be a register of all legal Indian citizens, primarily based on the Citizenship Act, 1955, and its rules.
2. In the context of police conduct and accountability in India, which of the following statements is NOT correct?
- A.'Police' is a subject under the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
- B.The Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case (2006) issued directives for police reforms, including the establishment of State Security Commissions.
- C.The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has the power to directly prosecute police officers found guilty of human rights violations.
- D.The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) lays down the procedure for investigation, arrest, and trial, ensuring due process.
Show Answer
Answer: C
Statement C is NOT correct. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a recommendatory body. It can inquire into complaints of human rights violations, recommend compensation, and suggest prosecution, but it does not have the power to directly prosecute police officers or any other individual. Prosecution is handled by the regular judicial system based on NHRC's recommendations or other legal processes. Statements A, B, and D are correct.
3. Consider the following statements regarding the powers and limitations of law enforcement agencies in India: 1. A police officer can demand proof of citizenship from any individual at any time without a specific legal mandate or reasonable suspicion. 2. The 'right to be forgotten' is explicitly recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. 3. The D.K. Basu guidelines issued by the Supreme Court mandate specific procedures to be followed during arrest and detention to prevent human rights abuses. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: C
Statement 1 is incorrect. Police officers cannot demand proof of citizenship arbitrarily. Such actions require a specific legal mandate, such as a formal notification for an NRC exercise or a specific law, and must be based on reasonable suspicion, not mere profiling or harassment. Arbitrary demands violate fundamental rights. Statement 2 is incorrect. While the Supreme Court has recognized aspects of privacy under Article 21, the 'right to be forgotten' has been discussed in various High Courts and is an evolving concept, but it has not been explicitly recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 by the Supreme Court in a definitive pronouncement. Statement 3 is correct. The D.K. Basu guidelines (1997) are a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court laying down detailed procedures for arrest and detention, including informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, informing a relative, medical examination, etc., to safeguard against custodial violence and human rights abuses.