On Wednesday, the Gujarat High Court formally accused four police officers of violating the Contempt of Courts Act. They are alleged to have publicly beaten five Muslim individuals in the Kheda district last year.

A panel consisting of Justice AS Supehia and Justice MR Mengdey formally laid out the charges.

While the case was being heard, DB Kumavat, one of the police officers in question, asserted that he had no direct participation in the incident. In response, Justice Supehia highlighted that Kumavat was at the scene when the incident occurred and did not attempt to intervene or aid the victims as they were subjected to a brutal beating.

The four law enforcement officers, namely AV Parmar, DB Kumavat, Kanaksingh Laxmen Singh, and Raju Rameshbhai Dabhi, are currently facing contempt charges. These charges are based on accusations that they violated the Supreme Court's directives regarding arrest, as outlined in the DK Basu case.

The High Court has granted them a deadline to submit a written statement in their defense as an affidavit by October 11.

Providing some context, five individuals from the Malek family were reportedly subjected to physical assault by police officers from Matar Police Station in the Kheda district. This alleged incident occurred after they were accused of throwing stones at a crowd during a Navratri event in Undhela village. Videos capturing the incident of the physical assault also circulated on social media.

The Malek family members have taken legal action by petitioning the High Court. They are seeking contempt of court charges to be brought against the policemen involved. They allege that these officers violated the Supreme Court's guidelines, which were established in the case of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal. These guidelines emphasize the importance of adhering to proper arrest procedures before detaining any individual.

In October of the previous year, the High Court requested a response from the State regarding this matter.

A report submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Chitra Ratnoo to the High Court indicated that video clips and photographs of the incident were not clear. As a result, it was challenging to identify all 14 policemen who were visible in the clips. According to the CJM, only four police officers could be positively identified from the available evidence.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) reported that the victims of the incident were also unable to positively identify all of the policemen who were involved in the incident.

Following the information provided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and the difficulties in identifying all the policemen involved, the High Court took action. It proceeded to formally frame charges against the four police officers who could be positively identified in connection with the incident.