Supreme Court's Judgement on Encounter Killings- Will it Solve the Problem?
In its judgement in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties versus the State of Maharastra delivered on September 23, 2014, the apex court prescribed various guidelines to be followed in dealing with encounter killings.
As the judgement itself says, these guidelines are based mostly on what the NHRC had suggested in the past. Some of the prescribed requirements are that an encounter killing should be investigated by the CID or a police station other than the one where the incident has occurred. A magisterial inquiry into all cases of death must be held under Section 176 Cr P C. Delinquent officers must be brought to book through prompt disciplinary action and prosecution. No out of turn promotion or awards should be given unless the gallantry of the concerned officers is established beyond doubt. In cases of death in police encounter, compensation to the family should be provided under section 357- A of the Cr P C.
Will these guidelines ensure that fake encounter deaths do not occur? One does not feel very optimistic on this count for two reasons. One, they did not have the desired effect in the past. The NHRC had issued these guidelines on two occasions- once in March 1999 and later in December 2003. The NHRC data itself shows that the number of fake encounters has continued to rise. 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. The NHRC report later chronicled 555 cases of alleged fake encounters in the country from April 1, 2009 till February 15, 2013.
Two, these guidelines become relevant after the encounter killing has taken place. They do not address the basic question- why do such killings take place at all?
There are various reasons. One is the support that the culture of encounters receives from different quarters. 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; otherwise, to sin in secret is no sin at all.
It is not realized that 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 criminalising 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 to get awards and promotions.
When controlling crime or dealing with law and order problems becomes 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." The present Union Home Minister is also reported to have made such a call when he was the Chief Minister of UP in 2000. Fake encounters of terrorists in Punjab during the hey days of terrorism were common and the central government knew about it, but deliberately overlooked how the police were trying to control the situation.
When Kalyan Singh said that people would praise the police if they followed his advice, he was not wide off the mark. Fake encounters are sometimes supported by the public too, particularly when crime and violence increase in society and the system is seen as helpless and ineffective to provide a feeling of safety and security to the public.
An increase in crime and violence puts the police under tremendous pressures. They are required to solve cases in quick time and when they fail to do so they are blamed by all. Even if they succeed in solving cases and arresting the criminals, the judicial system is so tardy, cumbersome and inefficient that sometimes it fails to bring them to book. The public feel threatened and unsafe and the police feel beleaguered and harassed. This is when the fake encounter specialist takes charge and decides to tackle the problem his way- kill the criminals if you cannot kill crime. The department in most cases is aware of what is happening. As Mr. Julio Ribeiro has said: “A desperate leadership unwittingly leans on him to rid itself of public condemnation and criticism for not being able to tackle the criminals.”
The criminal justice administration has been one of the most neglected areas of governance in this country. Price is being paid by citizens, not only in terms of increase in victimisation but also in terms of overall deterioration in the quality of life resulting from denial and delay in delivery of justice.
Besides effective implementation of Supreme Court’s guidelines, it is the functioning of the criminal justice system that needs to be improved. Once this happens, the number of encounter killings will come down.
