Don’t Make an Ass of the Law
‘Don’t make an ass of the law,’ the Supreme Court recently told the police. The immediate provocation for the reproach was the failure of the police to arrest and put behind bars a person who had been convicted for throwing acid on several persons four months ago. His conviction by the trial court had been confirmed by the High Court, but the accused was roaming free.
The number of such cases may be small, but there are a large number of people in this country, who succeed in getting away free after committing crime. This happens not because our norms of justice are very high but because our standards of enforcement and delivery of justice are very low. In some cases, FIRs are not registered; in others, investigations are not done properly and then there are a large number of cases, which keep on languishing in courts, finally ending in acquittals. Conviction rate in any case has been consistently declining.
The police of course deserve the admonition, as there have been many cases, even if not of the type mentioned above, where they have made an ass not only of the law but also of themselves. The biased, dishonest and incompetent enforcement of the law by the police has often dented their image badly in the country.
The police, however, are not the only ones who have not played the game with professional competence. So many others are equally or probably more guilty
Of the three main pillars, the judiciary enjoys the highest prestige even now; but can they escape the blame in this regard? The courts are enormously slow in deciding cases. Consequently, the pendency of cases under trial has become alarmingly huge. The judiciary may not be solely responsible for this problem, but they have not often shown enough concern for the fact that justice delayed makes as much an ass of the law as justice denied. No case has made a bigger ass of the law as the Bhopal gas tragedy and the judiciary is as much to be blamed for this as other institutions and authorities.
Two days after the Supreme Court rapped the police knuckles for letting the accused remain free even after conviction, they found to their dismay that High Courts in the country had stayed proceedings even in many heinous crimes, like, murder, rape, kidnapping and dacoity. Of the 2280 such cases stayed by them,1021 were those of murder, 492 of rape, 550 of kidnapping and 207 of dacoity. As many as 41% of the total number had been pending for 2 to 6 years and 8 % for more than 8 years. Of a total of 178 cases pending for more than 6 years, 91 were those of murder. Once the cases are stayed by the high courts, they remain in limbo for long, allowing the accused in many cases to remain at large on bail
The most dominant group that has brazenly and shamelessly broken the law with impunity is that of politicians. In power, they have succeeded in manipulating the system to serve their partisan and selfish interests in complete disregard of the law of the land. They have made an ass of the law even when they are out of power. This is the time when the police become efficient and arrest them. The response is immediate. They proclaim their innocence loudly, claiming themselves to be martyrs or victims of political witch hunt. Because of the poor image of the police, the public sometimes tend to accept their protestations as true.
It is not merely the entry of people with criminal backgrounds into politics that has been responsible for frequent violations of law. It is the way the political culture has evolved in this country, resulting in devaluation of political and administrative institutions and dismantling of value based politics that has promoted a climate in which it becomes easier to make an ass of the law and get away with it.
Failure of law to bring its violators to account is seen more in cases of crimes or law and order disturbances that are mass based. The anti Sikh riots of 1984, the communal bloodbath in Gujarat in 2002 and the Bombay riots of 1902-03 are some examples that immediately come to mind. Charges against Sajjan Kumar are yet to be framed 26 years after the carnage on Delhi roads.
The bureaucrats have not been far behind in treating the law as an ass. Rathore’s is not the only case of its kind; one can cite numerous other instances from recent history. Besides their proximity to politicians in power, there are at least three main provisions in law that have come very handy to bureaucrats to beat the law. The Central Vigilance Commission’s website shows a large number of officers who were found guilty after inquiry or investigation but who remained unscathed because the government did not accord sanction to prosecute them. Forget about prosecution; the Single Directive does not even allow the CBI to register cases against officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above without government’s permission. Even when inquiry is done and prosecution sanction is given, there is a provision that allows the state to withdraw a case from the court. The central as well as the state governments have often used this provision of law to bail out their loved ones, the most recent example being that of Satish Sharma.
Thus many individuals, parties and agencies in this country have worked to defeat the law of the land. We have probably not yet realized that whenever we make an ass of the law, we damage our own image and esteem as a people.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
POLICE FATALITIES DUE TO NAXAL VIOLENCE
COPS FOR THE KILLING
The killing of 75 security personnel by Maoists in Dantewada district of Chattisgarh on April 6, 2010 has whipped up waves of shock and anger amongst a large number of people in the country. Though all the politicians have not closed ranks in dealing with the Maoist menace, which the Prime Minter has rightly called the biggest challenge facing the country on the internal security front, it is highly encouraging to note that this incident has caused the largest opposition party at the centre to pledge full support and cooperation to the government in dealing with the Naxals ruthlessly.
This was the third major incident of Naxal violence which occurred recently in the country. Only two days prior to this incident i.e. April 4, 2010: Maoists triggered a landmine blast, killing 11 personnel of the elite anti-naxal force Special Operations Group (SOG) in Koraput district of Orrisa. On Feb 15, 2010: 24 personnel of the Eastern Frontier Rifles (EFR) were killed when the Maoists attacked their camp in Silda in West Midnapore district of West Bengal.
We are losing too many police personnel every year while dealing with insurgents, terrorists and other criminals. 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 eight years of the present decade (up to 2008), 6898 police personnel died in line of duty.
This is a very heavy toll. No police force anywhere else in the world has paid such heavy price. 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. The total number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty during the seventies in that country was 1,143 officers. The number slain during the eighties was only 801, but the number during the second half of the last decade (1996-2000) was 845. The USA, of course, has not faced the type of insurgency that we have countenanced; but what about some other countries that have faced violence over many years? Ireland was one of the most violent spots in Europe for a long time.. However, only 302 Royal Armed Constabulary officers and men lost their lives over the 30 year period of violence. In Britain, till the eighties, only 220 police officers are reported to have been killed in line of duty since the Metropolitan Police Force was founded in 1829.
Such comparisons of police fatalities, of course, are not very relevant. The law and order situation differs from country to country, as does the system and quality of governance. However, when a country keeps on losing such a large of its police personnel in line of duty every year as we have been doing, it does raise a few questions and concerns.
The first concern is about the training of police personnel. While a certain element of risk is inherent in a policeman’s job, it is absolutely essential to ensure that the police personnel sent on hazardous duties are suitably equipped and fully trained to deal effectively with situations which they may encounter on such assignments. The very fact that almost seventy five men of a seasoned para military force that has been fighting insurgency in different parts of the country for so long become “sitting ducks” to be killed by the Maoists does not speak very highly about the state of training or preparedness of the men of 62 CRPF Battalion. While a review of training programmes must lead to more intensive training in field craft and tactics to those posted in such areas, it must simultaneously stress the need to develop a high degree of self protection ability and awareness in police personnel. The ability to smell danger and live wire alertness in responding to it is one of the essential conditions to survive and succeed in jungle warfare situations and this is what the majority of police personnel lack.
The central government has been increasingly deploying the para-military forces in insurgency affected areas. This has resulted in enormous expansion of these forces in the country. For example, the CRPF had 201 battalions amounting to a total strength of about 2.5 lakhs on 1.1.2008. Most of the expansion has occurred very rapidly during the last few years. Expansion when and where needed must be done, but enlargement of numbers proves futile if it is at the cost of training and discipline of the force. ‘Area domination’ need not necessarily result from deploying a large number of police personnel in that area; a small force can do the job equally well provided it is equipped, trained and motivated to do so.
However much the government or the police leadership may deny, every incident of Dantewada type does dent the morale of the police force engaged in such areas. What is worse, it emboldens the enemy to indulge in greater violence; something that has repeatedly been seen in the recent history of Maoist violence.
Its time we put a very heavy price on the head of a policeman. The death of a policeman at the hands of a criminal is much more than the sum of resources invested in his recruitment, training and maintenance. A policeman is a symbol of law and state authority and when he dies at the hands of a criminal or an insurgent, a part of our system of rule of law, as opposed to the rule of violence, dies with him. Every death of a policeman in such situations leads to the erosion of state authority and that is what Maoists have been trying to do. The Dantewala incident of April 6 should never be allowed to happen again if the Maoists have to be defeated.
The killing of 75 security personnel by Maoists in Dantewada district of Chattisgarh on April 6, 2010 has whipped up waves of shock and anger amongst a large number of people in the country. Though all the politicians have not closed ranks in dealing with the Maoist menace, which the Prime Minter has rightly called the biggest challenge facing the country on the internal security front, it is highly encouraging to note that this incident has caused the largest opposition party at the centre to pledge full support and cooperation to the government in dealing with the Naxals ruthlessly.
This was the third major incident of Naxal violence which occurred recently in the country. Only two days prior to this incident i.e. April 4, 2010: Maoists triggered a landmine blast, killing 11 personnel of the elite anti-naxal force Special Operations Group (SOG) in Koraput district of Orrisa. On Feb 15, 2010: 24 personnel of the Eastern Frontier Rifles (EFR) were killed when the Maoists attacked their camp in Silda in West Midnapore district of West Bengal.
We are losing too many police personnel every year while dealing with insurgents, terrorists and other criminals. 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 eight years of the present decade (up to 2008), 6898 police personnel died in line of duty.
This is a very heavy toll. No police force anywhere else in the world has paid such heavy price. 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. The total number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty during the seventies in that country was 1,143 officers. The number slain during the eighties was only 801, but the number during the second half of the last decade (1996-2000) was 845. The USA, of course, has not faced the type of insurgency that we have countenanced; but what about some other countries that have faced violence over many years? Ireland was one of the most violent spots in Europe for a long time.. However, only 302 Royal Armed Constabulary officers and men lost their lives over the 30 year period of violence. In Britain, till the eighties, only 220 police officers are reported to have been killed in line of duty since the Metropolitan Police Force was founded in 1829.
Such comparisons of police fatalities, of course, are not very relevant. The law and order situation differs from country to country, as does the system and quality of governance. However, when a country keeps on losing such a large of its police personnel in line of duty every year as we have been doing, it does raise a few questions and concerns.
The first concern is about the training of police personnel. While a certain element of risk is inherent in a policeman’s job, it is absolutely essential to ensure that the police personnel sent on hazardous duties are suitably equipped and fully trained to deal effectively with situations which they may encounter on such assignments. The very fact that almost seventy five men of a seasoned para military force that has been fighting insurgency in different parts of the country for so long become “sitting ducks” to be killed by the Maoists does not speak very highly about the state of training or preparedness of the men of 62 CRPF Battalion. While a review of training programmes must lead to more intensive training in field craft and tactics to those posted in such areas, it must simultaneously stress the need to develop a high degree of self protection ability and awareness in police personnel. The ability to smell danger and live wire alertness in responding to it is one of the essential conditions to survive and succeed in jungle warfare situations and this is what the majority of police personnel lack.
The central government has been increasingly deploying the para-military forces in insurgency affected areas. This has resulted in enormous expansion of these forces in the country. For example, the CRPF had 201 battalions amounting to a total strength of about 2.5 lakhs on 1.1.2008. Most of the expansion has occurred very rapidly during the last few years. Expansion when and where needed must be done, but enlargement of numbers proves futile if it is at the cost of training and discipline of the force. ‘Area domination’ need not necessarily result from deploying a large number of police personnel in that area; a small force can do the job equally well provided it is equipped, trained and motivated to do so.
However much the government or the police leadership may deny, every incident of Dantewada type does dent the morale of the police force engaged in such areas. What is worse, it emboldens the enemy to indulge in greater violence; something that has repeatedly been seen in the recent history of Maoist violence.
Its time we put a very heavy price on the head of a policeman. The death of a policeman at the hands of a criminal is much more than the sum of resources invested in his recruitment, training and maintenance. A policeman is a symbol of law and state authority and when he dies at the hands of a criminal or an insurgent, a part of our system of rule of law, as opposed to the rule of violence, dies with him. Every death of a policeman in such situations leads to the erosion of state authority and that is what Maoists have been trying to do. The Dantewala incident of April 6 should never be allowed to happen again if the Maoists have to be defeated.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
THE COLLAPSED SYSTEM
THE ROTTEN SYSTEM
Somebody once said; “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; it is justice that hurts.” Sure, it does, particularly if it is the type of justice that was delivered in Ruchika’s case.
The nation is rightly outraged. People are angry not only because the punishment in such a scandalously wicked crime came too little and too late, but also because the accused was a very senior police officer, whose duty was to protect and uphold the law. Instead, he acted as a predator right from the beginning and unleashed the might of his position and of the police organization on a hapless girl and her family. To cap it all, Rathore’s insolently impudent smile on coming out of the court on the verdict day, reflecting the arrogance of the man, further fueled the public anger.
This case shows how people in position of power can manipulate and subvert the entire system to delay and deny justice to victims of crime. This was a case where the entire establishment ganged up to save their man, a wrong one, from damage. It didn’t matter if he had caused enormous harm to an innocent and a helpless family. The 14 year old girl was not merely molested; she was not allowed to pursue her career in academics or sport, false cases were registered against her brother and he was tortured and humiliated. This broke her down and drove her to commit suicide.
Obviously Rathore had served his political masters well, and in return they overlooked all the evidence against him and did not allow either departmental proceedings or a criminal case to be instituted against him. Considering the type of politicians ruling us and the type of establishment that has developed over a period of time, this should not surprise anyone.
It is no use blaming only the politicians for the ills plaguing the system. This is a case where all the agencies failed to live up to the norms not only of justice but even of normal decency in dealing with ordinary common people. The case, in fact, shows different ways in which impunity is granted to and enjoyed by people in positions of power. Evidence is covered up, false cases are registered, investigations are slovenly, legislative framework is inadequate, trials are delayed on flimsy grounds, and in the absence of alternative mechanisms of accountability the complainants are forced to approach the same establishment which has victimised them. There is a definite need to establish accountability structures, which work openly, quickly, effectively and impartially to ensure that the guilty police officers that abuse their authority are not allowed to get away through patronage extended to them by those in power. The Supreme Court’s directions given in Prakash Singh’s case about establishing independent police complaint machinery in districts and states need to be implemented.
The focus of public campaign for justice in Ruchika’s case is centering around the need to institute abetment to suicide proceedings against Rathore and to get his punishment enhanced. Other guilty police officers who registered false cases against Ruchika’s brother, detained him illegally and tortured him must be hauled up before courts of law. National as well as international instruments prohibit law enforcement officials from invoking “superior orders ”as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”
From Jessica to Ruchika, public have come out on streets many times, demanding justice in such cases. Public anger for just causes is welcome, as it helps in getting some relief. But it raises a few pertinent issues. Have we become so immune to pain and suffering of others that we get stirred only when there is a “public spectacle” of anger and grief? This can not be regarded as a salutary state of affairs. First, public memory is short and their anger can not be sustained over a long period. Two, the public sometimes can go overboard and develop a lynch mentality to influence justice. In such cases, the media does not merely provide information but starts conducting the trial. Justice should not become a victim of mass hysteria, just as it should not turn out to be an instrument to serve the interests of rich and powerful people.
Somebody once said; “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; it is justice that hurts.” Sure, it does, particularly if it is the type of justice that was delivered in Ruchika’s case.
The nation is rightly outraged. People are angry not only because the punishment in such a scandalously wicked crime came too little and too late, but also because the accused was a very senior police officer, whose duty was to protect and uphold the law. Instead, he acted as a predator right from the beginning and unleashed the might of his position and of the police organization on a hapless girl and her family. To cap it all, Rathore’s insolently impudent smile on coming out of the court on the verdict day, reflecting the arrogance of the man, further fueled the public anger.
This case shows how people in position of power can manipulate and subvert the entire system to delay and deny justice to victims of crime. This was a case where the entire establishment ganged up to save their man, a wrong one, from damage. It didn’t matter if he had caused enormous harm to an innocent and a helpless family. The 14 year old girl was not merely molested; she was not allowed to pursue her career in academics or sport, false cases were registered against her brother and he was tortured and humiliated. This broke her down and drove her to commit suicide.
Obviously Rathore had served his political masters well, and in return they overlooked all the evidence against him and did not allow either departmental proceedings or a criminal case to be instituted against him. Considering the type of politicians ruling us and the type of establishment that has developed over a period of time, this should not surprise anyone.
It is no use blaming only the politicians for the ills plaguing the system. This is a case where all the agencies failed to live up to the norms not only of justice but even of normal decency in dealing with ordinary common people. The case, in fact, shows different ways in which impunity is granted to and enjoyed by people in positions of power. Evidence is covered up, false cases are registered, investigations are slovenly, legislative framework is inadequate, trials are delayed on flimsy grounds, and in the absence of alternative mechanisms of accountability the complainants are forced to approach the same establishment which has victimised them. There is a definite need to establish accountability structures, which work openly, quickly, effectively and impartially to ensure that the guilty police officers that abuse their authority are not allowed to get away through patronage extended to them by those in power. The Supreme Court’s directions given in Prakash Singh’s case about establishing independent police complaint machinery in districts and states need to be implemented.
The focus of public campaign for justice in Ruchika’s case is centering around the need to institute abetment to suicide proceedings against Rathore and to get his punishment enhanced. Other guilty police officers who registered false cases against Ruchika’s brother, detained him illegally and tortured him must be hauled up before courts of law. National as well as international instruments prohibit law enforcement officials from invoking “superior orders ”as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”
From Jessica to Ruchika, public have come out on streets many times, demanding justice in such cases. Public anger for just causes is welcome, as it helps in getting some relief. But it raises a few pertinent issues. Have we become so immune to pain and suffering of others that we get stirred only when there is a “public spectacle” of anger and grief? This can not be regarded as a salutary state of affairs. First, public memory is short and their anger can not be sustained over a long period. Two, the public sometimes can go overboard and develop a lynch mentality to influence justice. In such cases, the media does not merely provide information but starts conducting the trial. Justice should not become a victim of mass hysteria, just as it should not turn out to be an instrument to serve the interests of rich and powerful people.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
THE BROKEN SYSTEM
The Broken System
Police reform in India is too important to neglect and too urgent to delay. This message, so important for a country that claims to be the biggest democracy in the world but has a highly colonial and repressive police force, was once again brought home recently by the publication of the Human Rights Watch’s report entitled “Broken System- Dysfunction, Abuse, and Impunity in the Indian Police” (August 2009). The report describes clearly and vividly the stark and ugly realities of policing in India that are well known to all who are interested in police reform issues in the country.
The study report is based on research done by the Human Rights Watch during two months (December 08 to January 09) in three states- HP, Karnataka and UP. The methodology included doing library research, interviewing victims and witnesses (60) of police misconduct, visits to police stations (19), interview with police officers (80) of different ranks and with lawyers and activists ( 65).
The methodology adopted for the study may not be impressive but it in no way vitiates its findings. The study documents human rights abuses, particularly in four fields- police failure to investigate crimes; arrest on false charges and illegal detention; torture and ill-treatment; and extrajudicial killings. It shows how the police fail to investigate crimes because they don’t register complaints, something that affects the poor and marginalised people more than the rich and influential citizens. Instead of acting professionally to carry out scientific investigations, they rely on threats, intimidation and coercions to extract confession and adopt short cuts. They arrest people on false charges and detain suspects and their family members illegally for prolonged periods, subject them to torture and ill treatment and indulge in fake encounter killings with impunity.
The police misconduct creates a climate of fear and insecurity not so much amongst criminals but amongst ordinary citizens who are reluctant to cooperate with the police. This is exactly what a former union Home Secretary Shri Kamal Pandey had once told the IPS probationers: while the law abiding public suspect the police, those who operate on the wrong side of the law do not fear them.
Part of the problem, according to the study, is the working and living conditions of lower ranks, particularly the constabulary. The organisation has a crumbling infrastructure. Police stations are not equipped not only with adequate strength or transport or communication, but even with basic civic facilities that can enable the police people to live a life of dignity. It is not only the living but also the service and working conditions that are degrading and inhuman. The police, particularly the lower ranks, work for long hours without a day’s break and continuously under pressure, resulting in demoralisation in ranks. In addition, political interference leading to partisan policing and protection of criminals have led to undermining the confidence of the public in police. These combined with lack of political will to introduce structural reforms in the police have led to “dysfunction, abuse and impunity” in the Indian Police.
There is nothing new in any of these findings. They have been made umpteen number of times by the expert committees and commissions appointed by the government to examine police problems, by the National and State Human Rights Commissions in their annual and special reports, by the media in its daily reportage and by courts in their judgments of police work. The fact that these get constantly repeated shows how utterly negligent and callous the governments in this country have been towards the important need for police reforms.
The country is going through a period when the security situation is really bad. The Prime Minister as well as the union Home Minister have repeatedly drawn the nation’s attention to the increasing terror and insurgency threats and called for greater alertness on the part of all. It is the danger emanating from terror or insurgent groups that has dominated and shaped the thinking of the government towards police reform issues. The steps taken so far have included the expansion of para military forces, 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 modernizing the equipment of the police forces.
This is as it should be; such steps are necessary. While all that is needed by the security forces to neutralise terror should be provided to them, it must be realised that a mere increase in number and equipment of the law and order machinery will not yield full results. What will really win the war against terror is public faith and confidence in the efficiency and integrity of the police agencies- a faith that leads to increasing inflow of intelligence and a willing cooperation being provided to the security forces. The police therefore have to make a conscious effort to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of all communities. This can happen only when they start doing their basic job in a professionally efficient, honest and impartial manner and the government provides the police the environment and the enabling capacity to do so. More than one hundred crore people of this country deserve much better day to day policing in normal situations than they are getting.
The Human Rights Watch’s report is a timely reminder to all concerned to wake up and introduce police reforms. This is necessary for the survival of our democratic structure, for speedy economic growth and to establish good governance in the country.
Police reform in India is too important to neglect and too urgent to delay. This message, so important for a country that claims to be the biggest democracy in the world but has a highly colonial and repressive police force, was once again brought home recently by the publication of the Human Rights Watch’s report entitled “Broken System- Dysfunction, Abuse, and Impunity in the Indian Police” (August 2009). The report describes clearly and vividly the stark and ugly realities of policing in India that are well known to all who are interested in police reform issues in the country.
The study report is based on research done by the Human Rights Watch during two months (December 08 to January 09) in three states- HP, Karnataka and UP. The methodology included doing library research, interviewing victims and witnesses (60) of police misconduct, visits to police stations (19), interview with police officers (80) of different ranks and with lawyers and activists ( 65).
The methodology adopted for the study may not be impressive but it in no way vitiates its findings. The study documents human rights abuses, particularly in four fields- police failure to investigate crimes; arrest on false charges and illegal detention; torture and ill-treatment; and extrajudicial killings. It shows how the police fail to investigate crimes because they don’t register complaints, something that affects the poor and marginalised people more than the rich and influential citizens. Instead of acting professionally to carry out scientific investigations, they rely on threats, intimidation and coercions to extract confession and adopt short cuts. They arrest people on false charges and detain suspects and their family members illegally for prolonged periods, subject them to torture and ill treatment and indulge in fake encounter killings with impunity.
The police misconduct creates a climate of fear and insecurity not so much amongst criminals but amongst ordinary citizens who are reluctant to cooperate with the police. This is exactly what a former union Home Secretary Shri Kamal Pandey had once told the IPS probationers: while the law abiding public suspect the police, those who operate on the wrong side of the law do not fear them.
Part of the problem, according to the study, is the working and living conditions of lower ranks, particularly the constabulary. The organisation has a crumbling infrastructure. Police stations are not equipped not only with adequate strength or transport or communication, but even with basic civic facilities that can enable the police people to live a life of dignity. It is not only the living but also the service and working conditions that are degrading and inhuman. The police, particularly the lower ranks, work for long hours without a day’s break and continuously under pressure, resulting in demoralisation in ranks. In addition, political interference leading to partisan policing and protection of criminals have led to undermining the confidence of the public in police. These combined with lack of political will to introduce structural reforms in the police have led to “dysfunction, abuse and impunity” in the Indian Police.
There is nothing new in any of these findings. They have been made umpteen number of times by the expert committees and commissions appointed by the government to examine police problems, by the National and State Human Rights Commissions in their annual and special reports, by the media in its daily reportage and by courts in their judgments of police work. The fact that these get constantly repeated shows how utterly negligent and callous the governments in this country have been towards the important need for police reforms.
The country is going through a period when the security situation is really bad. The Prime Minister as well as the union Home Minister have repeatedly drawn the nation’s attention to the increasing terror and insurgency threats and called for greater alertness on the part of all. It is the danger emanating from terror or insurgent groups that has dominated and shaped the thinking of the government towards police reform issues. The steps taken so far have included the expansion of para military forces, 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 modernizing the equipment of the police forces.
This is as it should be; such steps are necessary. While all that is needed by the security forces to neutralise terror should be provided to them, it must be realised that a mere increase in number and equipment of the law and order machinery will not yield full results. What will really win the war against terror is public faith and confidence in the efficiency and integrity of the police agencies- a faith that leads to increasing inflow of intelligence and a willing cooperation being provided to the security forces. The police therefore have to make a conscious effort to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of all communities. This can happen only when they start doing their basic job in a professionally efficient, honest and impartial manner and the government provides the police the environment and the enabling capacity to do so. More than one hundred crore people of this country deserve much better day to day policing in normal situations than they are getting.
The Human Rights Watch’s report is a timely reminder to all concerned to wake up and introduce police reforms. This is necessary for the survival of our democratic structure, for speedy economic growth and to establish good governance in the country.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
POLITICAL CONTROL OVER THE POLICE
INSULATING THE POLICE FROM ILLEGITIMATE POLITICAL CONTROL
Mr. P.C. Chidambaram’s recent counsel to the heads of police forces to raise their voice against arbitrary postings and frequent transfers of police officers done by the state governments once again brings into focus the important question of how the police should be controlled and governed.
The fact that the quality of political control exercised over the police in this country is poor and that this has led to gross abuses is fairly well recognized. It has resulted in subverting the rule of law and obstructing the growth of a professionally healthy system of policing. Almost all state police commissions and the National Police Commission have found overwhelming evidence of misuse of police system by the politicians for narrow selfish ends. Innumerable examples can also be cited from recent history to show how the police have either remained silent spectators to incidents involving major violations of law or not discharged their responsibility of investigating cases in an impartial manner to protect the interests of party or people in power.
The excessive use of the police for partisan interests in this country has led many to advocate the concept of police independence and this is where the debate on the subject has assumed a highly unrealistic tone.
There is no country in the entire world and there has never been one in the history of mankind where the police have been completely freed from political control. Total divorce between politics and policing is neither feasible nor desirable.
The police enjoy awesome powers, which must be controlled to prevent their misuse. Since controlling the police itself becomes a source of tremendous power that can be misused to serve partisan interests, the important question is how to balance these two apparently conflicting objectives?
Long ago the National Police Commission made some recommendations to deal with this problem, which were later reiterated by the Supreme Court in its judgment of September 26, 2006. Unfortunately, there has been considerable misunderstanding about the recommendations of the NPC. It’s most important recommendation about the constitution of a State Security Commission (SSC) was wrongly interpreted to mean that the SSC would substitute the state government in exercising control over the police force. The NPC never made this recommendation. All that the NPC recommended was 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.” and that the SSC would “help the State Government to discharge this superintending responsibility in an open manner under the framework of law.”
The way the package of reform has been interpreted, the initiatives taken so far have failed to make a significant impact. What is required is to convey the idea that police reform does not mean removing the control of the political executive over police; it aims only at ensuring that control is exercised legitimately and for the public good.
The problem of illegitimate political control over the police has been faced in advanced western countries too. They have taken the help of law to set up new mechanisms and arrangements to ensure that control exercised over the police is legitimate. We can learn some lessons from them.
For instance, one can emulate the British example where a very subtle distinction has been made between the police as an organisation and policing as a set of functions or activities. While it is the responsibility of the government to formulate policies, set standards, monitor performance and provide money and other resources to the police, it has no authority to give directions about police operations. This is strictly the preserve of the chief of police. This type of distinction between policy formulation and operational directions, though thin, can be made. The Police Act can define the word ‘superintendence’ to highlight this division of powers and responsibilities.
Law should further define clearly the roles and responsibilities of different agencies controlling the police. Broadly speaking, all over the world, there are three agencies that are involved or have a say in exercising control over the police. These are (i) the government, (ii) the police and (iii) the community. If the law can define the role and responsibilities of all the three agencies, a part of the problem will be over. The Police Act of UK does it very well. Another example of clear definition of role is the Police Act of Queens Land in Australia. Under this law, the communication between the Minister and the Commissioner of Police is clearly defined in the Police Act. Areas where the Minister is authorised to give directions to the police are mentioned in the Act. Directions from the Minister have to be in writing and the COP is bound to comply with the directions, but keep a record of all that is received.
There are two other problem areas. One is about the appointment and removal of the head of the police force. The right of the government to appoint the head of the police force is recognised almost all over the world. However, in some foreign countries, they have taken important statutory steps to cut down the government’s discretion in such cases. One, the process of selection for final appointment of the police chief is not confined merely to the government; it involves other parties too. Two, law lays down the criteria that should govern the choice and prescribes the procedure for appointment and also of removal.
The other problem area is the arbitrary and frequent postings and transfers of police officers. The proposed Police Establishment Board, even if established, would deal with the postings of lower ranks in the police; officers’ postings would remain with the government. This problem is not amenable to easy solution as the state governments justify frequent transfers on the ground of administrative expediency. What is required is for the civil society to set up pressure groups and mechanisms that help in ensuring that the government frames policies based on acceptable standards and norms and is not allowed to get away with violations. This type of pressure has been seen whenever some good officers have been posted out of districts or other places of posting.
Some of these ideas may look or sound utopian, but the experience of some other countries shows that such steps do help in bringing about police reform.
Mr. P.C. Chidambaram’s recent counsel to the heads of police forces to raise their voice against arbitrary postings and frequent transfers of police officers done by the state governments once again brings into focus the important question of how the police should be controlled and governed.
The fact that the quality of political control exercised over the police in this country is poor and that this has led to gross abuses is fairly well recognized. It has resulted in subverting the rule of law and obstructing the growth of a professionally healthy system of policing. Almost all state police commissions and the National Police Commission have found overwhelming evidence of misuse of police system by the politicians for narrow selfish ends. Innumerable examples can also be cited from recent history to show how the police have either remained silent spectators to incidents involving major violations of law or not discharged their responsibility of investigating cases in an impartial manner to protect the interests of party or people in power.
The excessive use of the police for partisan interests in this country has led many to advocate the concept of police independence and this is where the debate on the subject has assumed a highly unrealistic tone.
There is no country in the entire world and there has never been one in the history of mankind where the police have been completely freed from political control. Total divorce between politics and policing is neither feasible nor desirable.
The police enjoy awesome powers, which must be controlled to prevent their misuse. Since controlling the police itself becomes a source of tremendous power that can be misused to serve partisan interests, the important question is how to balance these two apparently conflicting objectives?
Long ago the National Police Commission made some recommendations to deal with this problem, which were later reiterated by the Supreme Court in its judgment of September 26, 2006. Unfortunately, there has been considerable misunderstanding about the recommendations of the NPC. It’s most important recommendation about the constitution of a State Security Commission (SSC) was wrongly interpreted to mean that the SSC would substitute the state government in exercising control over the police force. The NPC never made this recommendation. All that the NPC recommended was 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.” and that the SSC would “help the State Government to discharge this superintending responsibility in an open manner under the framework of law.”
The way the package of reform has been interpreted, the initiatives taken so far have failed to make a significant impact. What is required is to convey the idea that police reform does not mean removing the control of the political executive over police; it aims only at ensuring that control is exercised legitimately and for the public good.
The problem of illegitimate political control over the police has been faced in advanced western countries too. They have taken the help of law to set up new mechanisms and arrangements to ensure that control exercised over the police is legitimate. We can learn some lessons from them.
For instance, one can emulate the British example where a very subtle distinction has been made between the police as an organisation and policing as a set of functions or activities. While it is the responsibility of the government to formulate policies, set standards, monitor performance and provide money and other resources to the police, it has no authority to give directions about police operations. This is strictly the preserve of the chief of police. This type of distinction between policy formulation and operational directions, though thin, can be made. The Police Act can define the word ‘superintendence’ to highlight this division of powers and responsibilities.
Law should further define clearly the roles and responsibilities of different agencies controlling the police. Broadly speaking, all over the world, there are three agencies that are involved or have a say in exercising control over the police. These are (i) the government, (ii) the police and (iii) the community. If the law can define the role and responsibilities of all the three agencies, a part of the problem will be over. The Police Act of UK does it very well. Another example of clear definition of role is the Police Act of Queens Land in Australia. Under this law, the communication between the Minister and the Commissioner of Police is clearly defined in the Police Act. Areas where the Minister is authorised to give directions to the police are mentioned in the Act. Directions from the Minister have to be in writing and the COP is bound to comply with the directions, but keep a record of all that is received.
There are two other problem areas. One is about the appointment and removal of the head of the police force. The right of the government to appoint the head of the police force is recognised almost all over the world. However, in some foreign countries, they have taken important statutory steps to cut down the government’s discretion in such cases. One, the process of selection for final appointment of the police chief is not confined merely to the government; it involves other parties too. Two, law lays down the criteria that should govern the choice and prescribes the procedure for appointment and also of removal.
The other problem area is the arbitrary and frequent postings and transfers of police officers. The proposed Police Establishment Board, even if established, would deal with the postings of lower ranks in the police; officers’ postings would remain with the government. This problem is not amenable to easy solution as the state governments justify frequent transfers on the ground of administrative expediency. What is required is for the civil society to set up pressure groups and mechanisms that help in ensuring that the government frames policies based on acceptable standards and norms and is not allowed to get away with violations. This type of pressure has been seen whenever some good officers have been posted out of districts or other places of posting.
Some of these ideas may look or sound utopian, but the experience of some other countries shows that such steps do help in bringing about police reform.
Friday, September 11, 2009
FAKE POLICE ENCOUNTERS
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)