Vikas Dubey, popularly known as Vikas Panit, was killed in an “encounter” on 8th July, 2020 by the police officials of Uttar Pradesh. This was a trigger response to his attack on the officers of the same department that killed eight police officers. On 6th December, 2019, four alleged rapists and murderers, which sparked a wave of outrage and protest in the entire nation, were killed in a “shootout” on the Hyderabad- Bangalore highway. These recent event reflects upon the systematic institution of extrajudicial killings in India. 1,782 encounter death complaints were registered with NHRC between 2000 and 2017, with Uttar Pradesh accounting for about half of them. A whopping 38,000 of 78,000 human rights violations brought before NHRC in 2017-18 were from UP. Citizens approaching a human rights forum in such large numbers are a sure sign that political representatives and the justice delivery system are incapable of helping them.
Encounter killings, popularly misunderstood, are also called “retaliatory killings” and is essentially the right to personal defense not only available to the police, but all. As opposed to the portrayal of pop media culture, it is not based on what one seems to think “justice” or “fair” derived from individual judgment and biases but personal defense, only.
The Indian Penal Code neither mentions “extrajudicial killings” nor “encounter”. However, it is now a customary practice to evoke the sections from 96 to 106 of the IPC to justify extrajudicial killings. In all encounters, including Priyanka Reddy’s and Vikas Dubey’s, the police claimed that they retaliated in personal self-defense. Humans are entitled to basic civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Article 20(1) of the Indian constitution provides the citizens with protection in respect of conviction for offenses and article 21 with protection of life. Regardless of the prima facie of the presence of guilt, fair and free trial is a judicial trial, deriving a person of these is a clear violation of human rights.
Unfortunately, extrajudicial killings are not new to India. They have been used in the past by the police and security forces in varying contexts – to quell insurgencies such as in the states of Bengal in the 1960s, and in Punjab in the 1980s. Currently, the guise for many of these killings relates to national security offences including terrorism, and in areas of active conflict, such as in Kashmir, states in the North East of India including Manipur, as well as areas of central India affected by the Maoist insurgency.
What further complicates cases in conflict areas is the special legislation known as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA), which requires sanction for prosecution and in effect grants immunity to members of the security forces in designated “disturbed areas”. Act provides with wide-ranging powers to the Indian Defense Force in respect of using lethal force in numerous instances and fails to produce safeguards just in case of excessive use of such powers, that eventually ends up in varied accounts of violations committed in areas where AFSPA is applied. A petition by certain members of the armed forces arguing for the dismissal of cases filed has been rejected by the Supreme Court. The Manipur case therefore continues.
Section 6 of AFSPA and 7 of the Jammu and Kashmir AFSPA, grants protection to the officers acting under these Acts and stipulate that prosecution of members of the armed forces is prohibited unless sanction to prosecute is granted by the central Government that highlights not only on the social encouragement of extrajudicial killings but also the legal contribution to this system. From the case of Bacchan Singh v. the State of Punjab, it was declared that the death penalty will only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases.
Additionally, A landmark judgment regarding extrajudicial killings was People Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra and others (2014) that issued a 16 point procedure to be followed in the case of investigating police encounters is important to be noted.
In my very personal opinion, Police is seen as an instrument of political power to channelize patronage and emotional monopoly. No government or opposition would be willing to lose that, therefore there is no incentive to reform the police. Police are marginalised in a moral sense: Police are visibly expected by society to publicly stage violence or be implicated in its structures by politicians. At the same time they are morally condemned for enacting the norm. Majority of the force comprises of constabulary, that are typically promoted only once during their life of service. This can be very disincentivizing. This added to the poor working conditions and overburden due to low strength in numbers of the force, very little financial resources allotted to them along with the physical and mental risk of the job profile makes in emotionally convenient for them to neglect the law and order and take “justice into their own hands.
Another important factor that comes to play, especially in India, is caste and religion playing a role in the police-criminal nexus. Dubey’s interrogation should have focused on the police-criminal nexus that allowed the history with over 60 cases to his name to elude the law for so long. This creates a vicious cycle of offences that builds a very Low level of public trust in Police means that there is a fear that empowering the police more or reforming it is simply giving them more powers of repression.
SC’s decision in Vineet Narain V. Union of India in 1998 set an example. It has asserted its power to monitor investigations, pass interim orders, appoint amicus curiae, and continually hold investigative agencies accountable. This should be emulated in the case of the extra-judicial killing and police excess. In the Vikas Dubey case, the sequence of events casts the onus on the Uttar Pradesh police to prove its innocence.
Another particularly troubling aspect is the way these crimes are valorised in popular culture and by the media. Police with such serious allegations against them are termed “encounter specialists”, and many have been awarded medals as well as financial rewards. So rather than prosecution and punishment, there appears institutional and popular support for these killings.
To curb this rampant criminal practice there needs to be a concerted effort on multiple fronts – the legal, institutional as well as societal. International pressure, such as the recent statement, is an important step in adding to pressure for change.
There are no special acts or strong legislation made against this practice. Although the court has ordered to set up a special investigation and has recommended that the National Human Rights Commission takes part in it actively. There are other NGOs who work against this like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. The United Nations provides for the protection of basic human rights but it never really has taken strong steps besides commanding governments for follow-ups.
it is also to be noted that what was this thereof multi- layered critique of heinous crime is that it is committed by the figure that ought to protect the civil community and the rights of the society which raises the principal question- is extrajudicial killing another form of police brutality? Does the police have the acceptable license to kill? Ultimately to curb this crime there needs to be a strong act protecting the right to life of people in the country, a must change in the acts which provide powers to officials and change in the mentality of the powerful groups as well as educating people with their rights.
-Vriti Singhvee
Comentários