Panchkula, Feb. 1 -- In a case concerning the illegal custody and custodial violence of an 18-year-old boy, the Haryana Human Rights Commission (HHRC) has directed the Haryana director general of police (DGP) to re-examine the penalty imposed on inspector Jagdish Chander, holding that the punishment awarded to sub-inspector (SI) Yadwinder Singh is adequate and does not require reconsideration. Concurrently, the commission also directed the chief secretary to frame a comprehensive compensation policy at the earliest for victims of human rights violations in police custody to ensure meaningful redressal and prevent recurrence. The commission has further directed the DGP to submit a detailed report outlining institutional reforms, safeguards, and preventive mechanisms proposed to prevent recurrence of such violations in the state. The report is to be filed before the next date of hearing on March 12. The HHRC directions stems from a case in which the 18-year-old boy was picked up in June last year by Pinjore police station on allegations of using a firearm for celebratory firing following a panchayat election victory. In an order dated July 16, 2025, the Kalka sub-divisional judicial magistrate declared the arrest illegal and recorded visible injuries on the victim's body, confirming custodial violence. Based on the enquiry report submitted on December 17 by Amrinder Singh, ASP, Yamunanagar, penalties were imposed on both officers. Inspector Jagdish Chander was punished with a reduction of 2% per month from his pension for a period of twelve months, while SI Yadwinder Singh was awarded a stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect. The commission, however, termed the action taken as "woefully inadequate." On January 30, the commission directed the chief secretary to the Haryana government to submit a status report on the framing of a policy for grant of compensation in cases of human rights violations, injuries, and deaths occurring during police custody. Earlier, in its order dated December 19, the commission had issued a show-cause notice to the additional chief secretary, home department, asking why compensation should not be granted to the complainant for the wrongful acts committed by the police officers. In response, a reply was filed by the home department, which the commission described as "blatantly irresponsible, legally unsustainable, and reflective of an attempt to shield the state from constitutional accountability." Subsequently, on January 9, the additional chief secretary was directed to depute a senior officer, not below the rank of joint secretary, to appear in person before the commission. During the hearing held on Friday, Gagandeep, deputy secretary from the office of the additional chief secretary, informed the commission that no policy exists in Haryana for granting compensation to victims of human rights violations during police custody. He stated that a compensation policy exists only for violations during judicial custody. Deepanshu Bansal, counsel for the complainant, argued that mere departmental action against erring officials does not adequately remedy grave violations of fundamental rights and that monetary compensation is the only effective remedy, as settled by law....