Know Your Laws: Should plainclothes cops identify themselves during a lathicharge?

Videos from the student protest show plain-clothes personnel and officers without visible name tags using lathis. The images have prompted legal scrutiny over police accountability and compliance with established safeguards.What does law say about plain-clothes police, identification during a lathicharge? (Photo: ITG)The use of plain-clothes police personnel during the May 20 lathicharge on student protesters at Jantar Mantar and in the days that followed has raised serious legal questions about police identification, accountability and compliance with established legal safeguards. Videos showing police personnel, some without visible name tags and others dressed in civilian clothes, wielding lathis against protesters have prompted legal experts to question whether such deployment conforms to the law governing policing and crowd control.The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs criminal procedure, lays down a clear requirement regarding police identification. Section 36 provides that every police officer making an arrest must bear "an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will facilitate easy identification." The provision seeks to ensure accountability by allowing members of the public to identify officers exercising coercive powers.LAW ON POLICE IDENTIFICATIONFormer Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur said the law requires police personnel to carry proper identification and questioned the deployment seen during the protest. According to Justice Lokur, a combination of police personnel without name tags and officers in plain clothes carrying out a lathicharge is "completely illegal".Justice Lokur said the Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area must explain why such a situation was permitted. He pointed out that apart from statutory requirements, there are administrative rules, directions issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and Supreme Court guidelines requiring police personnel to display clear identification while performing their duties. PLAIN CLOTHES DEPLOYMENT UNDER SCRUTINYSenior Advocate Siddharth Luthra drew a distinction between different categories of police deployment. According to him, police personnel assigned only to security duties may be deployed in plain clothes. However, officers responsible for maintaining law and order should not be in civilian attire.Luthra said that if the plain-clothes personnel present during the protest were performing intelligence duties, an important question arises as to why they were carrying lathis. He maintained that it is not the role of officers deployed in plain clothes, whether for intelligence gathering or security, to wield batons during crowd-control operations. According to Luthra, police personnel engaged in law and order duties must wear proper police uniforms displaying visible name tags indicating both their names and ranks. He said this requirement is supported not only by police rules but also by directions issued by the Supreme Court.Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh also emphasised that police officers must be identifiable while performing official duties. He said a police officer should be in proper uniform so that members of the public can immediately identify that the person is a police officer. Such identification becomes particularly important in situations where members of the public are injured, pushed or subjected to force during crowd-control measures.Parikh said that a police officer is ordinarily considered to be on official duty while wearing a proper police uniform. While police may sometimes operate in plain clothes for specialised assignments such as encounters or other covert operations, he questioned the rationale for deploying plain-clothes officers during a public protest.According to Parikh, the responsibility for explaining such deployment lies with the Police Commissioner. He said it is for the police leadership to answer why officers in civilian clothes were assigned to law and order duties during a protest.Parikh also stressed the importance of protecting the right to peaceful protest. He observed that protests involving young people raising concerns about issues such as education, examination paper leaks and unemployment represent a form of democratic expression that should be allowed to be expressed peacefully and in a non-violent manner. He added that judicial orders alone cannot resolve such public concerns.WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAIDThe requirement for police personnel to display proper identification is not new. In its landmark 1996 judgment in D K Basu vs State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court laid down mandatory safeguards governing arrests and detention. Pending statutory provisions, the court directed that police personnel carrying out arrests and handling interrogation must bear "accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations." The court further directed that the particulars of all police personnel involved in handling an arrested person must be recorded in an official register.The DK Basu judgment was aimed at preventing abuse of police powers by ensuring that officers exercising coercive authority remain identifiable and accountable. The court also recognised that a person who is arrested or detained has the right to have a friend, relative or another person interested in their welfare informed of their detention as soon as practicable.ACCOUNTABILITY REMAINS KEYThe controversy surrounding the Jantar Mantar protest has therefore renewed attention to long-standing legal principles requiring transparency in policing. While the law permits the police to maintain public order, statutory provisions, Supreme Court directions and administrative safeguards all emphasise that officers exercising police powers should remain clearly identifiable.The presence of plain-clothes personnel wielding lathis and police officers without visible name tags has consequently raised questions about whether these established safeguards were followed and whether the deployment complied with the legal standards governing law enforcement.- EndsPublished By: Priyanka KumariPublished On: Jul 28, 2026 20:36 IST