TERROR AND POLICE REFORMS
The Bombay events must be the rarest of rare occasions in the history of policing in this country when the police received more bouquets than brickbats following their handling of a major incident of violence. There appears to be an unprecedented outpouring of grief and sympathy for the families of slain police personnel and an understanding of the difficult conditions under which the police function.
It is not the first time the police personnel have been killed by terrorists or other criminals In fact a large number of police personnel lose their lives in line of duty every year in this country. According to data compiled by the Intelligence Bureau, policing took a toll of as many as 21,428 lives of police personnel during the period 1961-62 to 1999-2000. During a nine-year period i.e. 1991-92 to 1999-2000, as many as 9389 police personnel lost their lives and during the present decade, 6898 police personnel have died in line of duty. This is a very heavy toll. No police force anywhere in the world has lost so many of its personnel in line of duty as the Indian Police have done. Even in the United States of America, where the violence levels during police-citizen encounters are quite high, the number of police casualties in line of duty has not been that high. According to the FBI’s Law Enforcement Bulletin, the total number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed in line of duty during the seventies in that country was 1,143 officers. The number slain during the eighties was only 801 and the number during the second half of the last decade (1996-2000) was 845. Ireland was one of the most violent spots in Europe during the period till the Good Friday agreement was signed. However, only 302 Royal Armed Constabulary officers and men lost their lives over the 30 year period. In Britain, till the eighties, only 220 police officers were reported to have been killed in line of duty since the Metropolitan Police Force was founded in 1829.
Unfortunately, the sacrifices made by police personnel while performing their duty have not received adequate recognition in this country. Poor image of the police of course has been an important reason for this, but this time it has been somewhat different. The touch of cold terror felt by the citizens on the streets of Bombay and the initial brunt of that terror faced by a highly ill equipped police force have led to a clamour for change. The public need and demand better security, which can be provided to them only by a police force that is much better than what it is at present. This therefore is an occasion when police reform becomes too important to neglect and too urgent to delay.
The question is- what type of reforms? The Government is yet to come out with a full answer, but the broad contours of the scheme that the government has in mind are visible from what the Home Minister P Chidambaram said in the Lok Sabha debate on terror on December 11, 2008. The establishment of a national investigating agency, the enactment of an anti terror law with stringent provisions, creation of regional NSG hubs, strengthening of intelligence network, setting up of counter insurgency and anti terrorism training schools and modernization of the police forces are some of the main features of the government’s scheme. New agencies and programmes are welcome, but the central and state governments need to remember that there is a huge existing police force waiting to be reformed. Its time it was realized it would not be possible for the police forces to deal with such incidents in future unless the police are depoliticised. The existing stranglehold that politicians have over the police must be loosened. In the debate on terror in the Lok Sabha on November 11, 2008, one of the most important points was made by the young MP Rahul Gandhi when he asked the MPs and MLAs to stop politicization of police: "As a young politician I would like to say that in the interest of the country we must desist from it. Also, that in the interest of common people we must stop interfering in the working of these institutions.” I would like to add that this is so even in the interests of politicians. A professionally efficient and an honest police force can give far better returns in terms of winning public support for the political party in power than a force, which is misused for selfish purposes.
Fighting terrorism requires a police force that is foundationally strong to function in an efficient and effective but also unbiased manner. This functioning has to be seen not only when they are dealing with emergencies but also when they are doing normal policing. Following an incident of terrorist violence, the governments must guard against the risk of normal day to day policing getting distorted or becoming a casualty altogether. In the fury of frustration that has followed the Bombay incidents, it is easy to forget that more than the specialized armed police it is the local thana and other civil police units that need to be professionalised. There is an impression amongst many that winning the war against terror requires a tough warrior cop’s policing approach. One may require that occasionally, but a sustained war against terror requires the development of a police force that is well organised, well controlled, well led, well equipped and well trained- a force that is friendly, sensitive and impartially fair, but firm.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
POLICE REFORMS- A REBUTTAL OF DR. ASHOK KAPUR’S IDEAS
POLICE REFORMS- TOO IMPORTANT TO NEGLECT AND TOO URGENT TO DELAY- A REBUTTAL OF DR. ASHOK KAPUR’S IDEAS
I read Dr. Ashok Kapur’s article on Police Reforms in India published in the Open Forum of the India News and Features on May 18 and 19, 2008 with great interest but with greater anguish.
Dr Kapur is highly critical of the National Police Commission’s (NPC) recommendations, Mr. Prakash Singh’s petition and the judgment of the Supreme Court- all three closely linked. The purpose of this article is to deal with major points made by Dr Kapur and show how they are based either on lack of adequate information or a deficiency of understanding and at some places even on distortion of facts.
NPC Report, Supreme Court Judgment and Democracy
Dr Kapur starts and ends his article by suggesting the need to review the Supreme Court’s judgement on Prakash Singh’s petition. If it is implemented, it may “seriously impact democracy and the rule of law.” This can only mean either of two things. Either Dr Kapur is fond of conjuring up and fighting imaginary phantoms or the Supreme Court’s understanding of the concept of democracy and rule of law is really deficient.
Dr Kapur is of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court, based on Prakash Singh’s Petition, which in turn is founded on NPC’s recommendations, violates the basic structure of the Constitution and the rule of law. How it does that is not very clearly stated. Studying the wooly arguments scattered at different places in the article, one can spot at least three areas where the NPC report, as per Dr Kapur’s analysis, violates the constitutional and rule of law standards:
1 Posting and Promotion of Officers:
According to Dr Kapur, the Commission “had suggested posting and promotion of senior police officers, permanently assigned to the State Governments, by official committees comprising a majority of Union Government representatives” Since the Police is a state subject, this is a “violation of the federal principle, a basic feature of the Constitution,” The assessment is wrong as the Commission never made this suggestion. All that the NPC suggested was that a committee headed by the Chairperson of the UPSC should prepare a panel of three IPS officers of the State cadre and the selection of the head of the state police force should be done by the state government out of that panel (Second Report, p31, para 15.45). The authority to post and promote all senor officers, including the chief of police, remains with the State Government. Neither the postings nor the promotions are to be done by the Committee as is being alluded to in the article. The NPC merely wanted to reduce the element of arbitrariness in selecting the head of the police force that has become so common now- a- days.
2. Establishment of State Security Commission:
Dr Kapur thinks that the idea of establishing the State Security Commission (SSC) recommended by the National Police Commission and accepted by the Supreme Court would amount to taking away the government’s “authority to exercise control or ensure accountability,” and “the prerogative of the elected cabinet, accountable to the legislature, even to frame policy would stand transferred to the security commission, a parallel cabinet, unelected and unaccountable.” It appears that the recommendation of the NPC has not been properly appreciated. The NPC has nowhere recommended that the superintendence of the Police Department should be transferred to SSC. All that the NPC has done is to “ lay down that the power of superintendence of the State Government over the Police should be limited for the purpose of ensuring that police performance is in strict accordance with law.” (Second Report, p30, para 15.38) It is to help the State Government discharge their superintending responsibilities in an open manner under the framework of law that the NPC recommended the constitution of a SSC in every State. As the NPC said: “ While retaining government responsibility for overseeing the police, this Commission will ensure that this responsibility is discharged in an open manner with publicly known policy directions and guidelines.”( Second Report, p32, para 15.54)
One may not agree with the composition or charter of SSC suggested by the NPC, but one can not but appreciate the environmental context in which this recommendation was made by the Commission. According to the Commission, the manner in which political control has been exercised over the police has led to gross abuses, resulting in erosion of rule of law and loss of police credibility as a professional organization in this country. It was therefore necessary to set up new institutional arrangements that would help in ensuring “political neutrality in police performance”(Second Report, pp31-32, para 15-53)
The NPC borrowed this idea of a commission to act as a buffer between the government and the police from such arrangements existing in other democratic countries. Japan is one example, where they have a National Public Safety Commission and the Prefectural Public Safety Commissions, which control the police forces at the national and prefectural levels. The Commission at the national level consists of a chairman and five members, having five-year terms, who are appointed by the Prime Minister with the consent of both Houses of the Diet. The Commission at the prefectural level usually consists of three members, whose appointments are made by the Governor with the consent of the Prefectural Assembly. The National Police Agency and the Prefectural Police Departments are controlled by the National Public Safety Commission and the Prefectural Public Safety Commissions respectively
The Commission model of police governance exists in many other democratic countries, like Canada, for instance. In British Columbia, every municipality with a population of 5000 or more has to provide for police service and all municipalities in such places are required to set up police boards to act as civilian oversight bodies. The Municipal Police Board in British Columbia, consisting of the Mayor, a councillor and not more than five other eminent persons(British Columbia Police Act, Section 23 (1)), determines the priorities, goals and objectives of the municipal police department, in consultation with the chief constable (British Columbia Police Act Section 26 (4)). Similarly in Northern Ireland, one such institution is the Police Board set up by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act, 2000. The Board is an independent public body made up of nineteen members, whose broad objective is to secure for the people of Northern Ireland an effective, efficient and impartial police service. In UK itself from where we have borrowed our Westminster system of governance, it is the Police Authorities that largely control the area police forces. They are freestanding bodies, independent and separate from local councils and are responsible for maintaining efficient and effective police forces for their areas.
Thus instead of damaging democracy or rule of law, as Dr. Kapur maintains, the Board or Commission model of police governance is increasingly being accepted as an important principle of democratic policing. The model serves two different purposes- one, to insulate the police from illegitimate influences of partisan politics by acting as a buffer between the police and elected governments; and, two, to involve community members in providing direction to the police and help improve police administration and management. NPC’s recommendation to set up SSCs was also motivated by the same twin objectives.
3. Inquiry into Complaints against the Police:
Dr. Kapur finds fault with the modalities of inquiring into public complains against police personnel that the NPC recommended in its First Report. There are two main objections. One, the accused in such complaints (i.e the police) ”double up both as the investigator and as the judge and jury.” Two, “dragging the neutral judiciary with a very fair reputation in the functioning of the executive” is a “violation of the principle of ‘separation of powers’. A basic feature of the Constitution”
Lets now study what the NPC recommended. The NPC felt that besides departmental inquiries, there are certain categories of complaints where some independent authority outside the police should do the inquiries. They suggested that a judicial inquiry should be made mandatory in three categories of complaints (First Report, page 61-62, paras10.18 & 10.19):
• alleged rape of a woman in police custody;
• death or grievous hurt caused while in police custody; and
• death of two or more persons resulting from police firing in the dispersal of unlawful assemblies.
To obviate delay in such appointments, there should be a standing body known as the District Inquiry Authority (DIA) headed by an Additional Session's Judge who should be assisted by an assessor from the police department. The DIA shall also serve as an independent authority to oversee the ultimate disposal of complaints dealt with departmentally.
Dr Kapur seems to suggest that the NPC under stressed the gravity of complaints of death or rape in custody by describing them as “misbehaviour” or “misconduct,” while the recommendation clearly shows that the Commission assigned greater seriousness to such complaints by suggesting a different, more independent and thorough system of inquiring into them. An officer from the police department to assist the DIA in its work does not mean that the accused becomes the investigator, judge and jury at the same time.
So far as the second objection is concerned, judicial inquiries have been instituted by the governments on numerous occasions to examine public complaints or matters of grave importance. If this amounts to violation of the principle of separation of powers, as Dr. Kapur thinks, obviously the Constitution has been infringed many times since Independence.
Police Act, 1861- Outdated:
Dr Kapur has serious objection to the petitioners regarding the Police Act of 1861 “outdated.” This is really astonishing, considering the fact that the Police Act was passed 147 years ago during the colonial rule when the problems and requirements of policing were completely different from what they are today. The Act is outdated not only because it is about a century and a half old but also because it set up a police organization that was totally subservient to the executive; that was unaccountable to anyone except their own hierarchy and the executive; whose managerial philosophy was based on distrust of the lower ranks; and that was highly militaristic and authoritarian in design and whose charter of functions was very narrow and limited.
Police Act, 1861- Adjunct to the Cr.P.C:
Amazingly, Dr. Kapur further propounds that the “Police Act of 1861 was not a ‘stand-alone’ legislation. It was a brief adjunct to the Criminal Procedure Code, enacted a year earlier.” This is a factual error. What was passed a year earlier was the Indian Penal Code and not the Criminal Procedure Code. Even if this error is disregarded, Dr Kapur never explains how the Police Act has to be looked upon as an adjunct to the Cr P C. The objectives of the two legislations were different.
Relationship between the Police and Magistracy:
Another objection of Dr Kapur is that the “petitioners conveniently bypassed the Criminal Code, whereby the police derive their formal investigative powers only under the overall control of the magistracy.” He does not explain why the petitioners should have included the Cr Pc matters in their petition, which mainly focused on the need to implement the recommendations of the NPC, including replacement of the Police Act of 1861. In fact it is Dr Kapur who conveniently forgets that if the police were subject to the general control and direction of the magistracy it was because the executive and judiciary were not separate when the Police Act or Criminal Procedure Code were enacted during the colonial times. After the separation of executive and judiciary done by the amended Cr P C in 1973, the NPC found no justification for the system. According to the NPC, Police should have a self-controlled organizational structure where there is no distortion of command and no dilution of responsibility. Their functions are subject to judicial scrutiny and they are accountable to law and therefore they cannot be subordinated to an executive. It is this approach of the NPC that is at the root of Dr Kapur’s angry analysis, as he later declares that the “most glaring lapse on the part of the Police Commission was to erase altogether the control of civil magistracy and make no provision whatsoever for any accountability on the part of the force”.
Post Retirement Benefits:
Dr Kapur feels that the “ostensible purpose of the PIL was to minimize “political interference” in the functioning of the police.” He finds it ironical because “what has come to pass is too stark to ignore. More and more retired police officers are being appointed under the Government since the submission of the report”. This argument does not cut much ice. If this is happening as Dr Kapur says, it is all the more necessary to institute arrangements that would help in insulating the police from illegitimate political interference so that the police officers’ opportunities to “hobnob” with politicians are reduced, if not altogether eliminated.
Summing Up:
There are some other points in Dr.Kapur’s article that can be discussed, but the constraints of space come on the way.
The need for Police reforms is urgent and important and deserves to be discussed dispassionately, unaffected by personal prejudices and service rivalries. Dr kapur’s analysis is found wanting in this respect. “How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct!”
I read Dr. Ashok Kapur’s article on Police Reforms in India published in the Open Forum of the India News and Features on May 18 and 19, 2008 with great interest but with greater anguish.
Dr Kapur is highly critical of the National Police Commission’s (NPC) recommendations, Mr. Prakash Singh’s petition and the judgment of the Supreme Court- all three closely linked. The purpose of this article is to deal with major points made by Dr Kapur and show how they are based either on lack of adequate information or a deficiency of understanding and at some places even on distortion of facts.
NPC Report, Supreme Court Judgment and Democracy
Dr Kapur starts and ends his article by suggesting the need to review the Supreme Court’s judgement on Prakash Singh’s petition. If it is implemented, it may “seriously impact democracy and the rule of law.” This can only mean either of two things. Either Dr Kapur is fond of conjuring up and fighting imaginary phantoms or the Supreme Court’s understanding of the concept of democracy and rule of law is really deficient.
Dr Kapur is of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court, based on Prakash Singh’s Petition, which in turn is founded on NPC’s recommendations, violates the basic structure of the Constitution and the rule of law. How it does that is not very clearly stated. Studying the wooly arguments scattered at different places in the article, one can spot at least three areas where the NPC report, as per Dr Kapur’s analysis, violates the constitutional and rule of law standards:
1 Posting and Promotion of Officers:
According to Dr Kapur, the Commission “had suggested posting and promotion of senior police officers, permanently assigned to the State Governments, by official committees comprising a majority of Union Government representatives” Since the Police is a state subject, this is a “violation of the federal principle, a basic feature of the Constitution,” The assessment is wrong as the Commission never made this suggestion. All that the NPC suggested was that a committee headed by the Chairperson of the UPSC should prepare a panel of three IPS officers of the State cadre and the selection of the head of the state police force should be done by the state government out of that panel (Second Report, p31, para 15.45). The authority to post and promote all senor officers, including the chief of police, remains with the State Government. Neither the postings nor the promotions are to be done by the Committee as is being alluded to in the article. The NPC merely wanted to reduce the element of arbitrariness in selecting the head of the police force that has become so common now- a- days.
2. Establishment of State Security Commission:
Dr Kapur thinks that the idea of establishing the State Security Commission (SSC) recommended by the National Police Commission and accepted by the Supreme Court would amount to taking away the government’s “authority to exercise control or ensure accountability,” and “the prerogative of the elected cabinet, accountable to the legislature, even to frame policy would stand transferred to the security commission, a parallel cabinet, unelected and unaccountable.” It appears that the recommendation of the NPC has not been properly appreciated. The NPC has nowhere recommended that the superintendence of the Police Department should be transferred to SSC. All that the NPC has done is to “ lay down that the power of superintendence of the State Government over the Police should be limited for the purpose of ensuring that police performance is in strict accordance with law.” (Second Report, p30, para 15.38) It is to help the State Government discharge their superintending responsibilities in an open manner under the framework of law that the NPC recommended the constitution of a SSC in every State. As the NPC said: “ While retaining government responsibility for overseeing the police, this Commission will ensure that this responsibility is discharged in an open manner with publicly known policy directions and guidelines.”( Second Report, p32, para 15.54)
One may not agree with the composition or charter of SSC suggested by the NPC, but one can not but appreciate the environmental context in which this recommendation was made by the Commission. According to the Commission, the manner in which political control has been exercised over the police has led to gross abuses, resulting in erosion of rule of law and loss of police credibility as a professional organization in this country. It was therefore necessary to set up new institutional arrangements that would help in ensuring “political neutrality in police performance”(Second Report, pp31-32, para 15-53)
The NPC borrowed this idea of a commission to act as a buffer between the government and the police from such arrangements existing in other democratic countries. Japan is one example, where they have a National Public Safety Commission and the Prefectural Public Safety Commissions, which control the police forces at the national and prefectural levels. The Commission at the national level consists of a chairman and five members, having five-year terms, who are appointed by the Prime Minister with the consent of both Houses of the Diet. The Commission at the prefectural level usually consists of three members, whose appointments are made by the Governor with the consent of the Prefectural Assembly. The National Police Agency and the Prefectural Police Departments are controlled by the National Public Safety Commission and the Prefectural Public Safety Commissions respectively
The Commission model of police governance exists in many other democratic countries, like Canada, for instance. In British Columbia, every municipality with a population of 5000 or more has to provide for police service and all municipalities in such places are required to set up police boards to act as civilian oversight bodies. The Municipal Police Board in British Columbia, consisting of the Mayor, a councillor and not more than five other eminent persons(British Columbia Police Act, Section 23 (1)), determines the priorities, goals and objectives of the municipal police department, in consultation with the chief constable (British Columbia Police Act Section 26 (4)). Similarly in Northern Ireland, one such institution is the Police Board set up by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act, 2000. The Board is an independent public body made up of nineteen members, whose broad objective is to secure for the people of Northern Ireland an effective, efficient and impartial police service. In UK itself from where we have borrowed our Westminster system of governance, it is the Police Authorities that largely control the area police forces. They are freestanding bodies, independent and separate from local councils and are responsible for maintaining efficient and effective police forces for their areas.
Thus instead of damaging democracy or rule of law, as Dr. Kapur maintains, the Board or Commission model of police governance is increasingly being accepted as an important principle of democratic policing. The model serves two different purposes- one, to insulate the police from illegitimate influences of partisan politics by acting as a buffer between the police and elected governments; and, two, to involve community members in providing direction to the police and help improve police administration and management. NPC’s recommendation to set up SSCs was also motivated by the same twin objectives.
3. Inquiry into Complaints against the Police:
Dr. Kapur finds fault with the modalities of inquiring into public complains against police personnel that the NPC recommended in its First Report. There are two main objections. One, the accused in such complaints (i.e the police) ”double up both as the investigator and as the judge and jury.” Two, “dragging the neutral judiciary with a very fair reputation in the functioning of the executive” is a “violation of the principle of ‘separation of powers’. A basic feature of the Constitution”
Lets now study what the NPC recommended. The NPC felt that besides departmental inquiries, there are certain categories of complaints where some independent authority outside the police should do the inquiries. They suggested that a judicial inquiry should be made mandatory in three categories of complaints (First Report, page 61-62, paras10.18 & 10.19):
• alleged rape of a woman in police custody;
• death or grievous hurt caused while in police custody; and
• death of two or more persons resulting from police firing in the dispersal of unlawful assemblies.
To obviate delay in such appointments, there should be a standing body known as the District Inquiry Authority (DIA) headed by an Additional Session's Judge who should be assisted by an assessor from the police department. The DIA shall also serve as an independent authority to oversee the ultimate disposal of complaints dealt with departmentally.
Dr Kapur seems to suggest that the NPC under stressed the gravity of complaints of death or rape in custody by describing them as “misbehaviour” or “misconduct,” while the recommendation clearly shows that the Commission assigned greater seriousness to such complaints by suggesting a different, more independent and thorough system of inquiring into them. An officer from the police department to assist the DIA in its work does not mean that the accused becomes the investigator, judge and jury at the same time.
So far as the second objection is concerned, judicial inquiries have been instituted by the governments on numerous occasions to examine public complaints or matters of grave importance. If this amounts to violation of the principle of separation of powers, as Dr. Kapur thinks, obviously the Constitution has been infringed many times since Independence.
Police Act, 1861- Outdated:
Dr Kapur has serious objection to the petitioners regarding the Police Act of 1861 “outdated.” This is really astonishing, considering the fact that the Police Act was passed 147 years ago during the colonial rule when the problems and requirements of policing were completely different from what they are today. The Act is outdated not only because it is about a century and a half old but also because it set up a police organization that was totally subservient to the executive; that was unaccountable to anyone except their own hierarchy and the executive; whose managerial philosophy was based on distrust of the lower ranks; and that was highly militaristic and authoritarian in design and whose charter of functions was very narrow and limited.
Police Act, 1861- Adjunct to the Cr.P.C:
Amazingly, Dr. Kapur further propounds that the “Police Act of 1861 was not a ‘stand-alone’ legislation. It was a brief adjunct to the Criminal Procedure Code, enacted a year earlier.” This is a factual error. What was passed a year earlier was the Indian Penal Code and not the Criminal Procedure Code. Even if this error is disregarded, Dr Kapur never explains how the Police Act has to be looked upon as an adjunct to the Cr P C. The objectives of the two legislations were different.
Relationship between the Police and Magistracy:
Another objection of Dr Kapur is that the “petitioners conveniently bypassed the Criminal Code, whereby the police derive their formal investigative powers only under the overall control of the magistracy.” He does not explain why the petitioners should have included the Cr Pc matters in their petition, which mainly focused on the need to implement the recommendations of the NPC, including replacement of the Police Act of 1861. In fact it is Dr Kapur who conveniently forgets that if the police were subject to the general control and direction of the magistracy it was because the executive and judiciary were not separate when the Police Act or Criminal Procedure Code were enacted during the colonial times. After the separation of executive and judiciary done by the amended Cr P C in 1973, the NPC found no justification for the system. According to the NPC, Police should have a self-controlled organizational structure where there is no distortion of command and no dilution of responsibility. Their functions are subject to judicial scrutiny and they are accountable to law and therefore they cannot be subordinated to an executive. It is this approach of the NPC that is at the root of Dr Kapur’s angry analysis, as he later declares that the “most glaring lapse on the part of the Police Commission was to erase altogether the control of civil magistracy and make no provision whatsoever for any accountability on the part of the force”.
Post Retirement Benefits:
Dr Kapur feels that the “ostensible purpose of the PIL was to minimize “political interference” in the functioning of the police.” He finds it ironical because “what has come to pass is too stark to ignore. More and more retired police officers are being appointed under the Government since the submission of the report”. This argument does not cut much ice. If this is happening as Dr Kapur says, it is all the more necessary to institute arrangements that would help in insulating the police from illegitimate political interference so that the police officers’ opportunities to “hobnob” with politicians are reduced, if not altogether eliminated.
Summing Up:
There are some other points in Dr.Kapur’s article that can be discussed, but the constraints of space come on the way.
The need for Police reforms is urgent and important and deserves to be discussed dispassionately, unaffected by personal prejudices and service rivalries. Dr kapur’s analysis is found wanting in this respect. “How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct!”
Friday, July 18, 2008
ARUSHI MURDER CASE- DISTURBING RESPONSES
ARUSHI MURDER CASE- DISTURBING RESPONSES
It is somewhat premature at this stage to analyse the Arushi murder case, as the CBI investigation is still on. However, the fact that Dr. Rajesh Talwar has finally been released on bail and the CBI has given him a “clean chit” raises a few issues that need to be discussed.
The main issue is that of accountability. Who should be held accountable for the trauma and suffering that an entire family has gone through? The character of the youngest member of the family, who was herself a victim of the most dastardly crime, was shred to pieces. According to UP Police, she became the victim because she was found to be in an “objectionable,” though not in a “compromising” position with the servant of the house. It was an “honour killing.” The father was having extra-marital relations with his colleague and a family friend. Wife swapping was a pastime in which the family used to indulge. Till the last day, they were reported to have booked 12 rooms in a hotel on the day the murder was committed.
The litany of lies and unverified statements made brazenly and repeatedly in this case is mind-boggling. If the Up Police was incompetently unprofessional, the media, particularly the electronic media, was thoroughly irresponsible and insensitive. They searched for salacious and sensational details, concocted them where they did not exist, and presented them to the public relentlessly and shamelessly. Sometimes one got the impression that the CBI was wasting its time and resources when the TV channels could do the job equally well, if not better, with their bunch of Sherlock Homes.
The other issue is that of police investigation skills. It is difficult to imagine how a police force can commit the type of silly mistakes that the UP Police did in this case. Not examining the scene of crime thoroughly, failing to collect elementary evidence, jumping to conclusions without verifying facts and showing too much hurry in presenting them to the media were some of the elementary mistakes that were committed. Crime investigation is a specialised work, which can be done well only if the investigating officers are equipped with the requisite skills and attitudes. It also requires close and effective, but not excessive supervision. When due to pressures or to steal limelight, too many superior officers jump into the fray, it can create confusion. A tendency to open the cards when the investigation is not even half-baked can dent the image of the police badly, as happened to the UP police in this case. Thus while crime investigation training needs improvement, the police must learn how to interact with the media in these days of instant communication. The police manuals of many states do not allow their police, particularly those at the lower and middle levels, to interact with the media freely. It is now seen that even at senior levels, the police can make a mess of their presentations. Though information with the media has to be shared, the police department must train their people in this field well.
Talking of investigation, the press reports say that the CBI has given a clean chit to Dr Rajesh Talwar as they have not been able to find any evidence against him despite all the scientific tests that were done. However, it is clear that the CBI has really not been able to come to a decision about Dr. Talwar’s involvement in this case. If, as reported, the initial case diaries of the Noida Police did not have any evidence of Dr Talwar’s involvement in the case and the CBI during its investigation failed to find any, the obvious conclusion should have been to close the case against him. This has not been done. Dr Talwar was released on bail by the court because the CBI, unlike previous occasions, did not object to his bail application. They left it to the court to take whatever action it considered “appropriate.” Dr Talwar thus is still an accused in the case. The CBI investigation done so far raises more questions than it answers.
Linked to the issue of accountability is that of compensation. Of course, depending on the final outcome of the case by the court, Dr Talwar or the family can take a decision on this issue, but can we expect the police and the media to atone for their sins of commission and omission in this case?
To err is human and mistakes in crime investigation have been committed elsewhere too, even by highly reputed police forces, like the Metropolitan Police, London. There is that famous case of Stephen Lawrence, who was a young black man murdered by a gang of white racists in South London in 1993. Investigation was initially conducted twice by the Metropolitan Police, but the Macpherson Inuiry Commission appointed by the UK Government (1999) concluded that the police investigation was marred by “a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism, and a failure of leadership by senior officers.'' The image of the police in the UK received a severe beating by the Commission’s findings, but the way the police and the government reacted was exemplary. The police admitted that police investigations were faulty. Sir Paul Condon, the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, made a public apology to the family: “I, we in the Met, feel a sense of shame for the incompetence of that first investigation and of how the family were let down. We could and we should have done better.” Later, Sir Jack Straw, the then British Home Secretary, announced in the parliament: “ The House will share my sense of shame that the criminal justice system, and the Metropolitan Police in particular, failed the Lawrence family so badly.”
Would it be too much to expect the UP Police and the Mayawati Government to emulate the Metropolitan Police and the British Government respectively, if not now but at least after the court clears Dr Talwar fully of the charges leveled against him!
It is somewhat premature at this stage to analyse the Arushi murder case, as the CBI investigation is still on. However, the fact that Dr. Rajesh Talwar has finally been released on bail and the CBI has given him a “clean chit” raises a few issues that need to be discussed.
The main issue is that of accountability. Who should be held accountable for the trauma and suffering that an entire family has gone through? The character of the youngest member of the family, who was herself a victim of the most dastardly crime, was shred to pieces. According to UP Police, she became the victim because she was found to be in an “objectionable,” though not in a “compromising” position with the servant of the house. It was an “honour killing.” The father was having extra-marital relations with his colleague and a family friend. Wife swapping was a pastime in which the family used to indulge. Till the last day, they were reported to have booked 12 rooms in a hotel on the day the murder was committed.
The litany of lies and unverified statements made brazenly and repeatedly in this case is mind-boggling. If the Up Police was incompetently unprofessional, the media, particularly the electronic media, was thoroughly irresponsible and insensitive. They searched for salacious and sensational details, concocted them where they did not exist, and presented them to the public relentlessly and shamelessly. Sometimes one got the impression that the CBI was wasting its time and resources when the TV channels could do the job equally well, if not better, with their bunch of Sherlock Homes.
The other issue is that of police investigation skills. It is difficult to imagine how a police force can commit the type of silly mistakes that the UP Police did in this case. Not examining the scene of crime thoroughly, failing to collect elementary evidence, jumping to conclusions without verifying facts and showing too much hurry in presenting them to the media were some of the elementary mistakes that were committed. Crime investigation is a specialised work, which can be done well only if the investigating officers are equipped with the requisite skills and attitudes. It also requires close and effective, but not excessive supervision. When due to pressures or to steal limelight, too many superior officers jump into the fray, it can create confusion. A tendency to open the cards when the investigation is not even half-baked can dent the image of the police badly, as happened to the UP police in this case. Thus while crime investigation training needs improvement, the police must learn how to interact with the media in these days of instant communication. The police manuals of many states do not allow their police, particularly those at the lower and middle levels, to interact with the media freely. It is now seen that even at senior levels, the police can make a mess of their presentations. Though information with the media has to be shared, the police department must train their people in this field well.
Talking of investigation, the press reports say that the CBI has given a clean chit to Dr Rajesh Talwar as they have not been able to find any evidence against him despite all the scientific tests that were done. However, it is clear that the CBI has really not been able to come to a decision about Dr. Talwar’s involvement in this case. If, as reported, the initial case diaries of the Noida Police did not have any evidence of Dr Talwar’s involvement in the case and the CBI during its investigation failed to find any, the obvious conclusion should have been to close the case against him. This has not been done. Dr Talwar was released on bail by the court because the CBI, unlike previous occasions, did not object to his bail application. They left it to the court to take whatever action it considered “appropriate.” Dr Talwar thus is still an accused in the case. The CBI investigation done so far raises more questions than it answers.
Linked to the issue of accountability is that of compensation. Of course, depending on the final outcome of the case by the court, Dr Talwar or the family can take a decision on this issue, but can we expect the police and the media to atone for their sins of commission and omission in this case?
To err is human and mistakes in crime investigation have been committed elsewhere too, even by highly reputed police forces, like the Metropolitan Police, London. There is that famous case of Stephen Lawrence, who was a young black man murdered by a gang of white racists in South London in 1993. Investigation was initially conducted twice by the Metropolitan Police, but the Macpherson Inuiry Commission appointed by the UK Government (1999) concluded that the police investigation was marred by “a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism, and a failure of leadership by senior officers.'' The image of the police in the UK received a severe beating by the Commission’s findings, but the way the police and the government reacted was exemplary. The police admitted that police investigations were faulty. Sir Paul Condon, the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, made a public apology to the family: “I, we in the Met, feel a sense of shame for the incompetence of that first investigation and of how the family were let down. We could and we should have done better.” Later, Sir Jack Straw, the then British Home Secretary, announced in the parliament: “ The House will share my sense of shame that the criminal justice system, and the Metropolitan Police in particular, failed the Lawrence family so badly.”
Would it be too much to expect the UP Police and the Mayawati Government to emulate the Metropolitan Police and the British Government respectively, if not now but at least after the court clears Dr Talwar fully of the charges leveled against him!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
RISING CRIME- MAIN REASON
CRIME DOES PAY
A 12-year-old mentally challenged girl is allegedly raped by her neighbour; one of the owners of a huge farm house is arrested for plotting the murder of his brother-in-law; an IAF pilot loses his life in an incident of road rage; a 35 year old woman, allegedly a rape victim, is thrashed by the family members and neighbours of the accused in public; a former airhostess is shot dead on a main road during night time, and an hour after that a retired army officer is grievously hurt when he resists attempts to rob him of his car; and a 24 year old blind girl is sexually assaulted and robbed in the university area by the driver of the auto rickshaw in which she was traveling. These are some of the incidents of crime that occurred recently in Delhi and near by areas.
Incidents like these cause great suffering and loss to the individual victims of crime and their families and friends. Economic and social loss, however, is much greater, as they create a feeling of fear and insecurity. “Every crime destroys Edens more than our own”
How does one explain the spurt in crime in the national capital? All types of explanations are being given. While some are ascribing it to the influx of criminals from other states, like UP, Bihar etc., others are associating the ill with increasing population and rapid urbanisation. The other favourite explanations are the widening of economic disparities between classes, changing of traditional value system, spread of consumerist values, influence of cinema and TV, and, of course, the inefficiency of the police- the all time favourite punching bag.
While some of these explanations may be valid, an elementary fact has not been adequately recognised. A large number of persons are committing crime, planned or otherwise, because law does not deter them any more. They feel that the chances of being caught are less and of being punished even lesser. “Commit a crime and the earth is made of glass” is what Emerson said long ago. The present earth this side of the world is definitely not made of glass. It is not only that a large number of people are getting away after committing crime; even after being caught, they succeed in defeating justice. The way the criminal justice system is functioning in this country, it holds no great terror to any one and, therefore, does not deter even those who are on the brink, what to talk of the hardened ones. While crime is increasing, conviction rate is declining and the number of cases pending in courts is becoming alarmingly large and it takes years to settle them.
The State is failing not only to prevent crime but also to deal promptly, justly and effectively with those who commit it. This has two harmful effects. One, it results in eroding public faith and confidence in the capability of the criminal justice system to control crime. The public are unwilling to cooperate with the system and its functionaries to control crime; it prefers in many cases to take law in their own hands and deliver instant ‘lynch justice’ to those who are caught while committing crime or even to suspects of crime. However, vigilantism, by public or by police, does not help in controlling crime. Two, fear of crime increases and it always grows at a rate faster than crime. It affects the quality of life enjoyed by citizens in many ways. They avoid moving out of their homes and known environs, particularly during certain times of the day, feeling paranoid about the dangers lurking elsewhere. They do not feel safe even inside the homes and start searching for alternative ways of protecting themselves and their property, like employing private security guards, using safety and protective devices, organising citizens’ patrols, forming vigilante groups etc. Inside or outside homes, the worst affected by this feeling of insecurity are women.
Over a period of time, crime has increased and its nature changed, with new types of criminality emerging fast, but the ability of the police to investigate it successfully has not improved. There are of course various problems. There has been tremendous increase in the workload of the investigating officers and often it becomes too heavy to be borne with any reasonable efficiency. Despite rapid advances in science and technology, an average investigating officer depends on traditional methods of crime investigation, including the use of third degree. In fact, a survey done a few years ago showed that the application of forensic science was limited to less than 6 % of IPC cases The police officers also feel that there are various inadequacies in laws that have remained unchanged- some for decades and others for centuries. The important laws like the Indian Penal Code, the Evidence Act and the Police Act were legislated by the British during the second half of the nineteenth century and they have remained unchanged.
We keep on blaming the British for the type of police and legal system established in this country. Foreign rule in this country ended more than 60 years ago. Nobody asks the question- why haven’t we taken steps during more than six decades to improve the system? It is not only the functioning of the police, but also of the courts that needs to improve if crime has to be controlled.
Every society gets the kind of law enforcement it deserves. Criminalisation of politics in this country has obstructed the growth of professional policing and given rise to a culture that negates the impression that crime does not pay. Crime does pay and is being seen to pay.
A 12-year-old mentally challenged girl is allegedly raped by her neighbour; one of the owners of a huge farm house is arrested for plotting the murder of his brother-in-law; an IAF pilot loses his life in an incident of road rage; a 35 year old woman, allegedly a rape victim, is thrashed by the family members and neighbours of the accused in public; a former airhostess is shot dead on a main road during night time, and an hour after that a retired army officer is grievously hurt when he resists attempts to rob him of his car; and a 24 year old blind girl is sexually assaulted and robbed in the university area by the driver of the auto rickshaw in which she was traveling. These are some of the incidents of crime that occurred recently in Delhi and near by areas.
Incidents like these cause great suffering and loss to the individual victims of crime and their families and friends. Economic and social loss, however, is much greater, as they create a feeling of fear and insecurity. “Every crime destroys Edens more than our own”
How does one explain the spurt in crime in the national capital? All types of explanations are being given. While some are ascribing it to the influx of criminals from other states, like UP, Bihar etc., others are associating the ill with increasing population and rapid urbanisation. The other favourite explanations are the widening of economic disparities between classes, changing of traditional value system, spread of consumerist values, influence of cinema and TV, and, of course, the inefficiency of the police- the all time favourite punching bag.
While some of these explanations may be valid, an elementary fact has not been adequately recognised. A large number of persons are committing crime, planned or otherwise, because law does not deter them any more. They feel that the chances of being caught are less and of being punished even lesser. “Commit a crime and the earth is made of glass” is what Emerson said long ago. The present earth this side of the world is definitely not made of glass. It is not only that a large number of people are getting away after committing crime; even after being caught, they succeed in defeating justice. The way the criminal justice system is functioning in this country, it holds no great terror to any one and, therefore, does not deter even those who are on the brink, what to talk of the hardened ones. While crime is increasing, conviction rate is declining and the number of cases pending in courts is becoming alarmingly large and it takes years to settle them.
The State is failing not only to prevent crime but also to deal promptly, justly and effectively with those who commit it. This has two harmful effects. One, it results in eroding public faith and confidence in the capability of the criminal justice system to control crime. The public are unwilling to cooperate with the system and its functionaries to control crime; it prefers in many cases to take law in their own hands and deliver instant ‘lynch justice’ to those who are caught while committing crime or even to suspects of crime. However, vigilantism, by public or by police, does not help in controlling crime. Two, fear of crime increases and it always grows at a rate faster than crime. It affects the quality of life enjoyed by citizens in many ways. They avoid moving out of their homes and known environs, particularly during certain times of the day, feeling paranoid about the dangers lurking elsewhere. They do not feel safe even inside the homes and start searching for alternative ways of protecting themselves and their property, like employing private security guards, using safety and protective devices, organising citizens’ patrols, forming vigilante groups etc. Inside or outside homes, the worst affected by this feeling of insecurity are women.
Over a period of time, crime has increased and its nature changed, with new types of criminality emerging fast, but the ability of the police to investigate it successfully has not improved. There are of course various problems. There has been tremendous increase in the workload of the investigating officers and often it becomes too heavy to be borne with any reasonable efficiency. Despite rapid advances in science and technology, an average investigating officer depends on traditional methods of crime investigation, including the use of third degree. In fact, a survey done a few years ago showed that the application of forensic science was limited to less than 6 % of IPC cases The police officers also feel that there are various inadequacies in laws that have remained unchanged- some for decades and others for centuries. The important laws like the Indian Penal Code, the Evidence Act and the Police Act were legislated by the British during the second half of the nineteenth century and they have remained unchanged.
We keep on blaming the British for the type of police and legal system established in this country. Foreign rule in this country ended more than 60 years ago. Nobody asks the question- why haven’t we taken steps during more than six decades to improve the system? It is not only the functioning of the police, but also of the courts that needs to improve if crime has to be controlled.
Every society gets the kind of law enforcement it deserves. Criminalisation of politics in this country has obstructed the growth of professional policing and given rise to a culture that negates the impression that crime does not pay. Crime does pay and is being seen to pay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)