(Guidelines for Reader: Latest Op-Ed Last; Verbatim
Compilation of The Hindu Op-Ed; Best to read in the order of oldest to newest to
get a comprehensive understanding; Consider repetition to be revision)
(We are drowning in information and starving for wisdom.
READ and develop a PERSPECTIVE!!)
U.P. sees 15 encounters in two days (03.02.18)
‘One gangster killed and 24 criminals arrested from 10
districts of the state’
A gangster was
killed and nearly two dozen criminals were arrested by police in 15 encounters
in different districts of Uttar
Pradesh during the past two days, a police spokesperson said here on
Saturday.
The encounters took
place in Bulandshahr, Shamli, Kanpur, Saharanpur, Lucknow, Baghpat,
Muzaffarnagar, Gorkahpur, Hapur and Meerut.
“As many as 24
wanted criminals were arrested and one gangster killed in 15 police encounters
reported from 10 districts of the state over a span of 48 hours,” the
spokesperson said.
Inderpal, a gangster
who carried a reward of Rs 25,000, was gunned down by the Special Task Force in
the encounter in Naglakhepad jungle on Friday.
According
Superintendent of Police (STF) Rajiv Narain Singh, Inderpal was wanted in more
than 30 cases of loot and murder in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
The police also
claimed to have recovered countrymade arms, ammunition, motorcycle, cars apart
from cash which was robbed by the criminals.
The maximum number
of encounters was reported from Bulandshahr and Shamli, where four and six
criminals were arrested respectively.
Three of those
arrested in Bulandshahr carried a cash reward for ₹20,000 each on their head. Two encounters
took place in Kanpur.
On Friday, February
2, 2018, two suspected criminals and as many policemen, including a station
house officer, were injured in an encounter in Gorakhpur.
The incident took
place when Maneesh Yadav and Manoj Yadav were escaping after threatening a
village head, police said.
Police said that a
team was rushed to the spot after receiving a complaint from the victim.
In the encounter,
Station House Officer, Khorabar, Sudhir Kumar, and Sub-Inspector, Jhangha,
Sunil Kumar Singh suffered minor injuries, they said.
The police have seized
a .32 bore pistol, a 12 bore gun, bullets and the motorcycle on which they were
escaping.
The criminals were
injured in the gunfight. They were subsequently arrested and admitted to BRD
Medical College.
Police claimed that
they have confessed to their involvement in the murder of businessman Dinesh
Gupta of Nai Bazaar, Jhangha, in Gorakhpur on Sunday.
The Uttar Pradesh
Police has intensified its crackdown on criminals after the new DGP O P Singh
took charge last month.
Chief Minister Yogi
Aditynath hnd vowed to take strict action against the criminals after his
government faced criticism over a string of crimes in the state.
XXX
Against human rights (01.03.18)
Encounter killings militate against the rule of law
Cicero famously said, “We are in bondage to the law in order
that we may be free.” John Adams said about the Massachusetts Constitution that
it was intended to have a “government of laws not of men”. The rule of law has
rightly been argued to be part of the basic structure of the Indian
Constitution. It is an unqualified human good. The World Justice Project Index
takes into account 44 indicators in 113 countries, and India’s rank in 2017-18
was a dismal 62. Denmark topped the list. In fact, our criminal justice system
ranks even lower, at 66. Nepal is ahead of us on this. Police encounters, which
have become a common phenomenon, do contribute to our low rank on ‘rule of law’
index.
Measure of arbitrariness
Rule of law is the fundamental principle of governance of
any civilised liberal democracy. It is the anti-thesis of arbitrariness. Yet,
the Uttar Pradesh government looks somewhat determined to disregard the first
principles of the criminal justice system. Police encounters have become
routine in U.P., and in December, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath introduced in
the State Assembly the Uttar Pradesh Control of Organised Crime Bill, 2017 on
the pattern of the regressive Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act
(MCOCA). Such legislation does not promote the rule of law, but is itself a
kind of violence, though a legitimate one with due authority of law. Such laws
are basically examples of “rule by law” as law itself negates human rights and
permits deviations from due processes. Authoritarian regimes, such as of
Hitler, too govern through “rule by law” and oppose “rule of law”.
It seems that lately the U.P. police has assumed the role of
both investigator and judge, and at times it successfully delivers instant
justice. U.P. is fast becoming known for its police encounters, with Mr.
Adityanath himself telling the U.P. Legislative Council in mid-February about
the rare feat achieved by the police in killing 40 criminals in as many as 1,200 encounters since
government formation. He said sympathy for criminals is dangerous for a
democracy. He is also reported to have said that “bandook ka jawab bandook se
diya jayega (the gun will be answered with a gun)”.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued
notices on encounter deaths to the U.P. government.
The fundamental premise of the rule of law is that every
human being, including the worst criminal, is entitled to basic human rights
and due process. Encounter killings generally take place with the prior consent
or in full knowledge of the top authority. What an irony that when after a long
wait, the trial in cases of fake encounter takes place, the main culprits
easily get discharged, and, in some cases, the Central Bureau of Investigation
even refuses to file an appeal against such discharge, and subsequently many
prosecution witnesses turn hostile, as has happened in the Sohrabuddin
encounter case in Maharashtra.
Mr. Adityanath should not be alone blamed for the encounter
culture. Such deaths have been taken place in States across India, and the
excesses in Punjab in the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, are well recorded.
Like a sledgehammer
In July 2016 in the case of Extra Judicial Execution Victim
Families Association, where the Supreme Court was dealing with more than 1,500
such killings in Manipur, Justice Madan B. Lokur observed: “Scrutiny by the
courts in such cases leads to complaints by the state of its having to fight
militants, insurgents and terrorists with one hand tied behind its back. This
is not a valid criticism since, and this is important, in such cases it is not
the encounter or the operation that is under scrutiny but the smoking gun that
is under scrutiny. There is a qualitative difference between use of force in an
operation and use of such deadly force that is akin to using a sledgehammer to
kill a fly; one is an act of self-defence while the other is an act of
retaliation.”
Importantly, the above observations were about terrorists,
not ordinary criminals like those being killed in U.P. encounters. From the
details of U.P. encounters, they do not look like acts of defence by the
U.P. police. These
encounters demonstrate the government’s resolve to adopt ‘the rule by gun’ in
preference to ‘the rule of law’.
We must recall what the Supreme Court said in the Salwa
Judum case (2011): “The primordial value is that it is the responsibility of
every organ of the State to function within the four corners of constitutional
responsibility. That is the ultimate rule of law.”
Faizan Mustafa is Vice-Chancellor, NALSAR University of
Law, Hyderabad
XXX
Miscellaneous
Editorials
Investigating the investigators (07.10.14)
Those who are enlightened in the police should welcome
the proposed judicial scrutiny of encounters, rather than look at it as being
one more unreasonable fetter on police discretion in an area of field
operations that could dilute their effectiveness
The Supreme Court’s
guidelines on how to regulate so-called “encounters” between the police and
crime suspects have come not a day too soon. According to its directions, every
death at police hands in such encounters must
be independently investigated and no officer be rewarded for gallantry unless
such investigation has established his bona fide response to criminal activity
in a difficult situation, and which left him with no option but to use force
against an established criminal. The reference here is to so-called “encounter
experts” in every police force who are often wrongly decorated for dubious
killings.
The court’s
directions further say that each death should be probed by the State Criminal
Investigation Department (CID) or a team from a police station other than the
one involved in the “encounter.” The report would then go to a magistrate for
further scrutiny. The law would take its own course thereafter, if any
illegality was unearthed by the magisterial inquiry.
The Supreme Court’s
prescriptions do not lay down any revolutionary approach to the problem. At
least two other High Courts — Andhra Pradesh and Bombay — have acted in the
past to enforce similar restrictions on police employment of force under
dubious circumstances. Way back in the late 1970s, the National Police
Commission had recommended that every death in police custody should be
subjected to a magisterial inquiry. Unfortunately, this was not accepted by the
Central and State governments.
In the latest
instance, the Supreme Court was responding to a Public-Interest Litigation
(PIL) filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), a
non-governmental organisation (NGO) which had alleged that in Mumbai alone,
between 1995 and 1997, there were 99 encounters involving the city police,
resulting in the death of 135 people. Perceptions on the subject may differ
widely between the police, human rights activists and the common man.
Fundamental however is a shared belief in the rule of law, without which no
democracy like ours can ever function. It is again the majesty of law that
permits the Supreme Court to intervene effectively in a sensitive issue such as
police killings of individuals and lay down how an instance of apparent police
overstepping of the law should be handled. This is why all of us need to bow
down to the wisdom of the just laid down judicial dictum that no “encounter”
death in the hands of the police should go uninvestigated. Enlightened police
leaders should wholeheartedly welcome the proposed judicial scrutiny of
encounters, rather than take the stand that this is one more unreasonable
fetter on police discretion in an area of field operations that could dilute
their effectiveness. They must recognise how such a legalistic stand prescribed
by the Supreme Court here could actually confer on them the benefit of a
trickledown effect on other areas of police routine as well, ones in which they
are under great unethical pressure from different quarters to do the wrong
thing. A possible fallout of the court ruling, at least among a section of
policemen at the grass-roots level, could be greater transparency and
circumspection in matters such as illegal or off-the-record custody in police
lock-ups, something that has traditionally brought odium to the Indian Police.
A police officer wanting to do the right thing but who is being harassed by
supervisory ranks or the political executive can now cite this ruling and take
the bold stand that whatever he did was likely to be subjected to a subsequent
judicial probe, and sticking to the path of virtue as embodied by law was
therefore preferable to action not prescribed by law.
In this, there is a
fundamental question that has to be answered in the context of the latest
ruling by the court. Why do “encounters” take place at all in the first
instance? Are we right in looking upon every police officer who has been
arraigned in the past for a few fake encounters as a maniac baying for blood?
We concede that we do have encounters that are fake and contrived. In many of
them, the policemen involved do successfully cover up their downright
recklessness or vindictiveness, or their own indiscretion. Many sceptics in society
believe this dim view of police encounters to be true.
There is also a
charitable view that policemen indulge in such reprehensible activity only
because of the glaring inadequacies of the criminal law of the land. There is
conviction among many police officers that if a dangerous criminal responsible
for many violent crimes has to be neutralised swiftly and society be saved from
him, then the only way out is to kill him; this, rather than go through the
labyrinth of the law that requires an arrest, interrogation, charge sheet and
court trial, all of which could take several years during which time a court
could also set him free from custody even as he is facing trial. Such a
shortcut is actually very appealing to many field officers as well as some members
of the community who themselves have been at the receiving end and expect quick
relief from criminal acts. This is analogous to the demand that during
interrogation, the police should liberally use the third degree on crime
suspects taken into custody. It is well known that such a clamour is often
voiced by even responsible members of the society who had been burgled and lost
valuable property.
When this is the
case, we should not be surprised at the recklessness of some investigating
officers, under pressure from those above in the hierarchy and who are
desperately looking for quick results. We should also remember that it is not
as if only crime suspects are victims of encounters. A large number of
policemen have also lost their lives in such encounters, especially in the
naxalite areas. Therefore, we need to take a balanced view of factors that lead
to the police using questionable methods in handling difficult field
situations.
We welcome the
Supreme Court directive for an inquiry into every police encounter that leads
to human killings. We are conscious of the fact that we could be assailed by
some in the Indian Police as being too idealistic and impractical. We do not
claim that the new procedure to check police excesses is going to put an end to
police manipulation or recklessness for all time. This is especially because
magisterial inquiries are often an eyewash and are dictated by the political
executive as well as by senior members of the bureaucracy at the former’s
instance. In our view they do not pack the quantum of deterrence or credibility
needed to bring about a sea-change in the police psyche. The incidence of
police misconduct of this genre may show a decline to start with. In course of
time however, a few unscrupulous police leaders could prevail upon their
subordinates to resort to encounters as a way to tone down public criticism
whenever there is a rising crime wave. This is inevitable in a large police
organisation like in India where professionalism is rapidly yielding place to
expediency of the times.
Good conduct cannot
be engendered only through deterrence and punishment arising out of judicial
prescriptions. What is needed is the slow and studied cultivation of a respect
for human dignity. This is unfortunately now a scarce commodity in the Indian
Police — sometimes even in the higher echelons. Political and police
enlightenment should go hand in hand if we are to witness civilised police
conduct.
XXX
The past catches up (17.07.17)
The SC rightly rules that extra-judicial killings cannot
be overlooked owing to lapse of time
By ordering an investigation by the Central Bureau of
Investigation into more than 80 cases of suspected extra-judicial killings in
Manipur, the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle of accountability as an
essential part of the rule of law. These cases involved either suspected fake
encounters or the use of excessive or retaliatory force. The court has rightly
rebuffed an attempt by the government to stall any probe into these deaths on
the ground that they were too old to be raked up now. It has taken the view
that the killing of a person who was possibly innocent cannot be overlooked
owing to mere lapse of time. The state cannot take advantage of its own
inaction and scuttle a probe by citing the delay as a reason. Last year, the
court had ruled that the armed forces cannot escape investigation for excesses
even in places where they enjoy special powers, and that the legal protection
provided by the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, or AFSPA, will have to yield
to the principles of human
rights. It is surprising that even after this ruling on petitions
demanding an inquiry into 1,528 deaths in counter-insurgency operations in
Manipur, the Attorney General had argued against the court ordering an
investigation into some specific instances. In fact, he had come up with the
unpalatable argument that inquiries conducted by the authorities in Manipur
were biased in favour of the citizens owing to local pressure and the ground
situation. The court stood firm in its assessment, deprecating the suggestion
that all inquiries were biased and motivated.
The court’s order is yet another reminder that AFSPA has
contributed to the climate of impunity in States where it is in force,
especially in Manipur, and
this may trigger a fresh demand for its repeal. The situation under AFSPA is so
hostile to the concept of human rights that in many of these cases there was no
inquiry at all. In some instances, the First Information Report was against the
victim and not against the alleged perpetrators. It will not be easy for the
investigators to get to the bottom of these incidents. It is possible that the
special team to be constituted by the CBI Director will find witnesses hard to
come by and face difficulties in gathering evidence in many cases. However,
that cannot be a reason for denying or putting off a formal criminal
investigation as required in law. Justice will be served if there is successful
prosecution in at least some cases. Another worrying aspect in the domain of
human rights is that the National Human Rights Commission has been reduced to a
“toothless tiger”. It is grossly understaffed despite its increasing workload,
and many State governments show little respect for its guidelines and
instructions. The court’s directive that the Centre take note of the NHRC’s
concerns and remedy the situation could not have come a day too soon.
XXX
(All of the above articles have been taken straight from The
Hindu. We owe it all to them. This is just an effort to consolidate opinions
expressed in The Hindu in a subject-wise manner.)
No comments:
Post a Comment