ONLY DUE PROCESS

 Arrest of Mr Chidambaram

I read The Editorial “ONLY DUE PROCESS (IE, August 22) on Mr. Chidambaram’s arrest with great interest, but felt it did not measure up to the newspaper’s usually high standard.

There can be no two opinions about what is mentioned in the sub heading: “Case against P Chidambaram must proceed strictly according to the law, and must be seen to do so too.” The general tenor of your reasoning as well as the specific points raised in the editorial seem to suggest this is not being done, but how due process has been violated in the case has not been explained.

The first point raised in the article is that though the prosecution considers it a case of money laundering of “monumental magnitude”; yet the scenes that led up to arrest on 21st evening at Mr Chidambaram’s residence were “ unseemly and unprecedented.” This attempt to link the magnitude of money laundering with the scenes witnessed that evening is not clear.

Even if the scenes were unseemly, they were not unprecedented. One example of a more unbecoming incident that immediately comes to mind is when the Chennai police at midnight on June 30, 2001 dragged the four time Chief Minister of Tamilnadu Mr Karunanidhi out of bed, beat him up before arresting him in a corruption case. The scene of an old man and a former Chief Minister being dragged screaming, crying and kicking had shocked the nation. Nothing like that happened in Mr Chidambaram’s case.

 If incidents of that evening became ungainly, how can the CBI be held responsible for that? If the CBI had to scale the walls, they were forced to do so.  The editorial completely overlooks the behaviour of Mr Chidambaram, who, instead of voluntarily surrendering to the law and thereby obviating the need for any indecorous incident to occur, shut the door of his residence to prevent the entry of the CBI team.  According to the Cr P C, If an accused forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, the police are authorised to “use all means necessary to effect the arrest.” Whatever pre arrest “drama” occurred that day, the means used by the CBI to arrest were quite benign and legal. Yet, the editorial tries to “raise serious questions about the CBI’s conduct.” The question raised in the editorial is: what was the need for “high drama”  when the CBI was not dealing with a “declared offender” or a “heinous crime”?  Mr Chidambaram may not have been declared a proclaimed offender, but that he was evading arrest can not be denied.  Mr Chidambaram’s behaviour from the time anticipatory bail was denied to him clearly showed that he was trying to evade arrest. He remained untraceable for 28 hours and avoided facing the CBI.   He is accused of an economic offence, which sometimes causes greater harm to the society than a heinous crime. 

 It was not merely the prosecution that called it a money laundering case of “monumental magnitude.”   The Delhi High Court called him a “kingpin, that is the key conspirator” in a “classic case of money laundering”.  Later, the CBI court, while sending the Congress leader to CBI custody till 26th August also said: “Allegations against Chidambaram are serious in nature and in-depth investigation is required.” Even the apex court did not intervene in the CBI case.

The editorial refers to the Congress allegation that action against Chidambaram was a “show of political vendetta” Every time the CBI has acted against a prominent politician from the opposition, it has invariably been followed by a chorus of noises against the government. The idea is not so much to attack the CBI as to declare the government as the guilty party, thereby simultaneously proclaiming oneself to be  the innocent victim of vendetta politics. This happened in the UPA days and it is happening now. The question is, why has this type of response become a standard practice, and how does it impact the image of the premier investigating agency of the country? No accused in a criminal case ordinarily admits to his or her involvement in the crime. They all claim to be innocent. Therefore, the public should treat such statements as the wild rants of distressed politicians, but it does not always work that way. Over a period of time, the CBI’s image has been dented, partly due to its own performance and partly due to the repeated, standard response that the investigating agency's action in such cases is motivated by political considerations.  It gives rise to a perception that the CBI, like police forces in the country, is influenced in its work by the party in power. Crooked politicians take advantage of this public perception. Even in cases where the action taken against them is perfectly legitimate and as per the law, they invariably pose as victims of political vendetta and witch-hunting.

The editorial  criticises justice Gaur’s recommendation on bail by saying it is a “fundamental right” of citizens to be released on bail. While bail and not jail is a principle that is followed by the judiciary in this country, to call it a fundamental right is somewhat of an exaggeration.  

There is a feeling in the country that the rich and powerful people succeed in getting away with their misdeeds and the criminal justice system generally fails to make them accountable. This editorial would only help in perpetuating that public perception.

Politicised Policing

 

WEST BENGAL EVENTS ARE SYMPTOMATIC OF POLITICISED POLICING

According to a recent news item that received wide publicity, the West Bengal Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee ordered the police to arrest people who were chanting “Jai shri Ram” when her convoy was passing through the road. The police are reported to have apprehended 10 people from Barrackpore the next day. The news item became viral because people enjoyed the sight of a gusty CM losing her cool over a minor event, but no one raised the most relevant and important issue: under what authority did the CM issue such orders to the police. 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. Chanting a slogan like “Jai shri Ram” is no offence under any law and asking the police to arrest people involved in such chanting was completely illegal.  We in this country have become so accustomed to seeing the politicians issuing unauthorized orders to the police that no eyebrows were raised on learning either about CM’s orders or about action taken by the police.

The doctors’ strike in West Bengal is another event that highlights the same problem. The doctors were angry not only because they were assaulted but also because the police are reported to have remained inactive either in preventing the assault or in proceeding against those who were involved in the attack. The doctors raised a big question mark over the objectivity and impartiality of the police and the fact that this has received wide acceptance speaks volumes about how badly the police in the country have been politicised and politically polarised. 

Another recent event and the most deplorable one occurred when the Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar along with other senior officers sat on a dharna with the West Bengal Chief Minister at the Metro Channel in Kolkata. What the senior police officers did was not only violative of the provisions of AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968/AIS (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, but also brought a bad name to the entire police force. This incident clearly shows how certain elements in politics and in police have become a strong mutually supporting system.  The existence of a symbolic relationship between politicians in power and the police officers gives rise to a climate of impunity and political patronage that results in creating and perpetuating a system where the best in the service cannot function without impediments and the worst find themselves protected in a way that demoralises ordinary good police personnel from working with honesty and commitment. This shatters the morale of honest officers and creates a general impression that the wrong ones always win the race. This impression percolates down the line and undercuts the will of men at various levels to act courageously and vigorously in conformity with law. It, therefore, no longer remains a question of a symbiotic relationship between some politicians and police officers. The effects of the relationship are felt by the entire organisation. It results in distorting the command structure of the police, erodes discipline, promotes impunity, breeds corruption and leads to the abuse of police authority and miscarriage of justice. It ultimately shakes the confidence of the public not only in the police but also in the entire system of governance. 

Insulating the police from politicisation and  accountability of police are at the heart of police reform and in need of urgent and vital attention from the point of view of addressing public needs and sustaining the constitutional system and rule of law. It is not as if the need for police reform has not been recognised.  We have appointed numerous commissions and committees, including the state police commissions in sixties and seventies, National Police Commission in late seventies and early eighties, Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms in nineties, Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms and Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System in 2000, Soli Sorabjee Committee to Draft a Model Police Act in 2006, Second Administrative Reforms Commission in 2007 (Report on Public Order) etc. The Supreme Court stressed the need for police reform in its judgements, like those delivered in the Havala case in December 1998 and the other announced in September 2006. i

Most recommendations made by these high powered bodies have remained unimplemented The resistance to reform is deeply entrenched and it stems from the same consideration that led the colonial rulers to establish the system here. As long as the police remained subservient to the executive, they could always be misused to further the interests of the ruling classes. And misused they have been. The police leadership cannot be absolved of their responsibility as they have gone along with their masters and allowed the status quo to remain.

The existing system is unacceptable.  It has resulted in subverting the rule of law and in   obstructing the growth of a healthy and professional system of policing.  It must change. “The Government should make earnest efforts to depoliticise the institution of police before it becomes too late to retrieve it from the morass of degeneration.  It must be ensured that the police remains accountable only to the law of the land.” The Prime Minister has the reputation of fixing targets and achieving them. Hope he targets this area of reform, which, as the CHRI slogan goes, is too urgent to be delayed and too important to be neglected.