A controversy has erupted in Gujarat after Leftists and civil-liberties activists reportedly approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) over police action against Faisal, the man accused of killing his live-in partner Kajal Baraiya at a bus stand in Bhavnagar. The development has triggered a wider debate over the balance between protecting the rights of an accused person and acknowledging the seriousness of the crime for which he was arrested. According to the report, Faisal was taken into custody after Kajal’s mother filed an FIR alleging that he had killed her daughter.
The case became particularly contentious after a video showing police personnel allegedly beating Faisal in public surfaced on social media. The footage reportedly showed Faisal crying and pleading for mercy while being struck with lathis. The incident subsequently became the focus of criticism from civil-liberties groups, who argued that custodial or public violence cannot be justified merely because a person has been accused of a serious crime.
According to OpIndia’s report, Leftists have focused heavily on the alleged police brutality, with Maheshwari reportedly filing a complaint before the NHRC describing the police action as an abuse of power. The complaint characterised the treatment of Faisal as “state-sponsored brutality,” raising questions about whether law-enforcement agencies followed proper procedures while dealing with an accused murder suspect.
The controversy intensified because of the circumstances surrounding Faisal’s arrest. The report states that Kajal and Faisal had been in a relationship for several years and that Faisal had previous criminal antecedents. It further claims that Faisal had recently been released from jail and that Kajal had helped secure his release. Shortly afterward, he was accused of killing her in broad daylight at the Bhavnagar bus stand. CCTV footage reportedly captured the assault, adding a particularly disturbing dimension to the case.
Leftists and civil-rights advocates, however, have argued that allegations of police misconduct must be investigated independently, regardless of the nature of the crime involved. That principle is significant in a constitutional democracy. An accused person does not lose all legal protections merely because the allegations against him are grave. At the same time, critics argue that any discussion about police excesses must not obscure the alleged violence suffered by the victim.
The role of The Wire and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has also come under scrutiny following their intervention. The report says The Wire highlighted the alleged public beating of Faisal and cited a PUCL legal notice sent to senior Gujarat government and police officials. The notice reportedly questioned the manner in which Faisal was treated after being taken into custody.
Critics of the intervention contend that the immediate focus should remain on establishing the complete circumstances of Kajal’s death while simultaneously investigating the allegations against the police. Leftists, according to the criticism cited by OpIndia, have been accused of giving greater prominence to the accused’s alleged mistreatment than to the victim and the circumstances that led to the arrest. Such criticism, however, should itself be distinguished from the legal question of whether police officers acted lawfully.
There is an important principle at stake on both sides. Leftists and civil-liberties organisations are entitled to demand accountability from the police, particularly where allegations of custodial violence arise. But accountability should apply equally to everyone involved. If Faisal is ultimately convicted, the punishment must follow due process and the law. If police officers exceeded their authority, those responsible should likewise face appropriate action.
The episode therefore raises a difficult but necessary question: can society demand justice for victims while also insisting that suspects are treated according to constitutional safeguards? The answer should be yes. Justice cannot become selective depending on the identity of an accused person, just as concern for human rights cannot become detached from the rights and dignity of victims.
The Faisal-Kajal case is now likely to remain under public scrutiny as investigations and legal proceedings continue. The controversy surrounding the police action has opened another chapter in a deeply disturbing case, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the relevant authorities and courts to establish the facts. Leftists may continue to press the human-rights dimension of the matter, while critics will demand that the victim’s alleged killing receive equal attention. Ultimately, both criminal accountability and protection from unlawful state action must operate within the same framework: the rule of law.
