THE PONTIFF, POLICE AND POLITICS
Jayendra Saraswati’s case is becoming more and more intriguing everyday. Has there ever been a murder case where the Prime Minister of the country writes to the Chief Minister, advising caution in arresting an accused? In this case, he does, gives the same advice again when he meets her in person in Chennai and his office later brings it on record and makes that advice public. The Chief Minister replies the next day and informs the PM and others that what she has done is “in furtherance of due processes of law”
And probably it is in furtherance of the same due processes that Vijayendra Swarasti is arrested on the same charges immediately after the senior pontiff is released on bail by the Supreme Court. It took Tamilnadu Police more than a couple of months to realise that the junior man is also involved in crime and has committed the same offences as his elder guru.
It will be for the courts to decide who is guilty and who is not and one should leave it at that. However, this case, like so many other past cases of its ilk reported from Tamilnadu and other states, clearly brings into focus a highly disturbing fact- the increasing politicisation of police that has occurred in the country over a period of time and the fact that this is now readily accepted by all. The general public perception is that whatever is happening to Kanchi mutt pontiffs is because the Chief Minister wants it to happen. It is accepted unquestionably that the police would always be ready to do whatever right or wrong they are asked to do by their political masters. It’s too bad if someone becomes a victim. The police credibility is so low that even where action taken against a person is perfectly legitimate and is as per the law, the public suspect the police of mischief.
It was sad to see the headlines of one of the national newspapers of January 11: “Jaya arrests Kanchi Jr”, as if Jaya is a Sub Inspector of Police. We in this country have become so accustomed to seeing the politicians issuing unauthorized orders to the police that no eyebrows are raised on seeing such headlines. Because of the ugly realities of governance in this country, we forget the statute book. It is none of the business of the Chief Minister to decide who should be arrested or not arrested. It is wrong to think that it is an executive decision; it is not. Arresting a person suspected to be involved in the commission of a cognizable offence is a part of the process of law enforcement and has, therefore, to be governed by the provisions of law. The criminal procedure code does not empower any person or agency outside the law enforcement machinery to take such decisions.
The villain to some extent is that old and archaic piece of legislation governing the police in this country called the Police Act of 1861. The Act gives the government the authority to exercise superintendence over the police, without defining the word ‘Superintendence’ or prescribing some guidelines to ensure that the use of power will be legitimate. The Act does not mandate the police to function as a professional organization; nor does it establish any institutional and other arrangements to insulate the police from undesirable and illegitimate outside control, pressures and influences. The result is that the politicians have found it very easy to misuse the police for furthering their own partisan and vested interests. That is why though the country has been independent for more than 57 years, till now, no government, central or state, has taken the initiative to replace the Police Act of 1861 with new legislation, which would be in tune with the requirements of democratic policing, insisting that the police should be subject to the rule of law, rather than the wishes of a powerful leader or party; that they should intervene in the life of citizens only under carefully controlled circumstances; and that they should be publicly accountable. In the absence of such a law, Jayalalitha and other politicians succeed in getting whatever they want done through their police forces.
The senior leadership in the police in this country cannot be absolved completely of their responsibility in contributing to this state of affairs. The desire of some of them to beat their colleagues in the race to the top and being eager to implement all orders, right or wrong, to get and retain coveted postings is often exploited by the politicians to bring the whole organisation to act at their bidding. Transfer is an important weapon used by the politicians to bend the police officers to their will. In the Jayendra Saraswati’s case, the DGP gets transferred the day after the Supreme Court’s judgement in the bail case is delivered. The DGP of course cannot be held responsible for grant of bail to the accused, but the idea in all such decisions is to send a message to the next incumbent and through him down the line that extra efforts must be made to see that the politician’s wishes are complied with.
It’s time we realized the wisdom of what a very eminent and seasoned police officer of the earlier years, late Mr. P.R.Rajgopal wrote: “When the police at different levels are used by the people in authority to break or even to bend the law to sub-serve doubtful ends, those concerned will have set the police on the high road to many more serious violations of law and in more important areas.” The tragic events that happened in Gujarat a few years ago have proved Mr Rajgopal correct, but we have not learnt our lessons.
