EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLINGS BY THE POLICE
Ishrat Jahan’s killing is another one in the long list of fake encounter cases that occur frequently in different parts of this country. According to information given by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Parliament on August 4, 2009, as many as 346 fake encounter cases were registered by the NHRC during the three year period (2006 to July 09). Incidentally, it was not Gujarat but UP that topped the list, with more than half the cases i.e. 182 reported from that state.
No government or state can really claim to have a clean record. As long as the incident remains hidden, neither the government nor the police department shows concern. The hue and cry is raised only when the entire story comes out in public.
It is the public scandal that offends; to sin in secret is no sin at all, so said the French playwright Moliere. Unfortunately for the Gujarat Police, who, like other state police forces, have been sinning for considerable time, the Ahmedabad Metropolitan magistrate S P Tamang’s report has created a public scandal.
As usual, and this is another reason for our failure to take serious note of the problem and find solutions, the incident has been politicised. The Congress Party has called Narendra Modi’s a ‘rogue’ government- a ‘man eater.’ The CPI (M) has demanded the resignation of Chief Minister Modi. These parties forget that the record of their governments is equally bad, if not worse.
Since the publication of the report has been banned by the Gujarat High Court, the public do not know the full facts of the case. The question that remains unanswered for many is- who directed the magistrate to conduct the probe and when?
There are two versions. One, the inquiry was done under Section 176 Cr PC. If this is so, why should the report come out more than five years after the incident occurred? An inquest inquiry under Section 176 Cr P C is mandatory and is done immediately after the custodial death occurs. The other version is that the magistrate was asked to conduct inquiry on August 13, 2009, the day when the Gujarat High Court had already set up a committee to investigate the incident. Who ordered the inquiry and release such a sensitive report to the public when a petition on the issue was sub- judice is not clear.
Every time an encounter death occurs, the police supported by the state government show it as the result of police acting in self-defence, which in many cases is wrong. The Cr P C authorises the police to use force to the extent of killing a person only in two situations- to disperse unlawful assembly when there is imminent danger to life and property and the assembly can not be otherwise dispersed and to arrest a person who is resisting arrest and is involved in the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Since these circumstances can not be cited in defending the killing of alleged criminals or terrorists during encounters, the only way is to project the police as using such force in self defence.
Why do such killings take place. There are various reasons. One is the support that the culture of encounters receives from different quarters.
It is supported by the politicians when it suits them. When controlling crime or dealing with law and order problems effectively becomes highly important from political point of view, fake encounters get state encouragement and protection, with complete assurance of impunity granted in advance. Mostly, such assurance is implicit; but occasionally even clear directions are also given. An example of this is the address given on April 30, 1998 by the then Chief Minister of UP Mr. Kalyan Singh. The Chief Minister while addressing the state police officers at a law and order review meeting in Lucknow said: "I want performance, results. I want you to take a vow that you will create a dhamaka (explosion) in the state. If noted criminals can be liquidated in encounters, do it. If you take the life of one person who has taken the lives of 10 others, then people will praise you. And I am here to protect you." Fake encounters of terrorists in Punjab were common and the central government when the state was under President’s rule knew about it.
Fake encounters are sometimes supported by the public too, particularly when crime and violence increase in society. Police deviance is bound to increase whenever the fear of crime whips up the rhetoric of war against crime, criminals and terrorists. The danger of the public turning a blind eye towards the use of custodial or illegal violence by the police is particularly manifest in areas where the terrorists or insurgents belong to minority communities and their crimes of violence are targeted against security personnel or members of other communities. The public in such cases may not take serious notice of violence committed by police personnel against people suspected to be terrorists or their supporters.
The policy of fake encounters is wrong not only because it is contrary to law, but because it generally proves counter productive. It does not solve the crime problem. You do not kill crime by killing criminals illegally. What is worse is that this policy has the effect of criminalizing the police force to an extent that they develop nexus with gangs and brutalising them to an extent that they do not hesitate to kill even innocent persons to get awards and promotions.
To deal with the problem of fake encounters, there must be zero tolerance towards it from all quarters, particularly from the government and the police department. Don’t let the guilty men escape. Find out the truth and set up accountability mechanisms to punish them. Prompt disciplinary action should be followed by prosecution where it is required. And no out of turn promotion or gallantry awards should be given in undeserving cases. NHRC’s guidelines, particularly with regard to registration and investigation of such cases, must be scrupulously followed.
