In the wake of controversial Bhopal encounter, Manisha Sethi, a Professor at Jamia Millia Islamia and human rights activist, expressed grave concern over the incidents of encounter killings since Independence and criticised the impunity of police. She was addressing a fortnightly public meet Guftgu organised by Jamia Collective in the capital on 12 November.
Questioning the place of encounter killings in Indian democracy, Sethi said, “We should think whether encounter is a new thing for our country. More than six decades have passed when democracy was adopted and the constitution was enshrined. Are these encounters an aberration in our democracy? Do these encounters represent shortcomings of law? We should try to understand whether encounter killings have any place in a democracy?
Talking on the past incidents of encounter and Tarkunde Committee, she said, “In 1977, Jaya Prakash Narayan formed Tarkunde Committee to investigate 77 encounters during the Emergency in Andhra Pradesh. The committee investigated three encounters to find that two of them did not happen. As they were claiming that there was exchange of fire with Moists but the eyewitness account said that labourers were taken by truck to the jungle and killed. The committee also found that the police who conduct encounter get political backing. We see that killing and impunity after killing were established very soon in our republic.”
Over the misuse of Section 46 by the police and the government, she said, “In case of Bhopal encounter, Bhopal ATS chief said that the law is with us and we can kill. ATS chief presented Section 46 of Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) to prove his point. All police officers and governments constantly cite Section 46 to claim that law is with them. This is despite the fact that Article 21 of the Constitution says nobody can take your life except established by law. It means that if anyone is accused of a crime, a case will be filed and trial will be conducted. Evidence will be judged and the verdict given. There may be conviction or acquittal.”
Criticising the police behaviour of evading the law, she furthermore said, “There is a certain category of people who are beyond the discourse of this whole due process. This is what gets strengthened over and over again. There is a law that provides self-defence and self-protection. But it is legally regulated. I have to demonstrate in the court that the action and force I took was necessary at the time and proportionate to the aggression of the other person. But the policemen exempt themselves saying that they are beyond that. But the law has no provision that this would not apply to them. They have to demonstrate that they acted against the response of the danger. The police themselves decided that since they are security agency so they are exempt. The burden of Article 21 will not be on them. The Andhra Pradesh High Court gave a landmark judgement that every act of killing by the police has to be registered as an offence. But the Supreme Court stayed this judgment.”