Opinion Warning in Atiq Ahmed killing: People celebrate ‘encounter’ culture – and criminalisation of politics
Citizens have reconciled to a failed criminal justice system and thus not only do they elect MPs and MLAs with gory criminal records but also applaud extra judicial killings. A course correction is seriously needed at this crucial juncture
With more than a hundred cases pending against him, how did Atiq Ahmed get elected five times consecutively to the assembly of Uttar Pradesh and once to Parliament? (PTI file) Nearly 40 per cent of members of the current Parliament have criminal cases pending against them. Most of them do not feel vulnerable or threatened as they are aware that it will take years for trials to conclude. They are not wrong. A very serious case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOC) that we registered in 2004 in the Crime Branch Mumbai has just been concluded in January 2023.
The main purpose of governance is to provide safety and security to citizens who elect their representatives for this role. But if the elected members themselves have criminal records, would they be interested in a criminal justice system that is prompt and efficient? With more than a hundred cases pending against him, how did Atiq Ahmed get elected five times consecutively to the assembly of Uttar Pradesh and once to Parliament? And why would he and his ilk ever legislate sanctioning funds and resources for more police persons and judges for expeditious trials?
In India, we have this critical gap between the registration of a crime and the process coming to a logical end. This gap has become so humongous that extra-constitutional means are being adopted to fill it. As per the National Crime Records Bureau’s 2021 report, only 10,416 cases of murder were disposed of during the year with just a 42.4 per cent conviction rate. The Law minister has admitted to more than 4.7 crore cases pending in various courts. As per NCRB data, in my cadre, the state of Maharashtra, 681 serious cases of murder/rape/others took five to 10 years to conclude and in 155 such serious cases, the trial was completed more than 10 years later. The questionable methods of “bumping off” in private and “encounters” in uniform have thus gained public approval and approbation as the last resort. If a police officer or a civilian faces a threat to his/her life, retaliation in self-defence is legally provided for. But these days, encounters are predicted by criminals themselves and eagerly anticipated by citizens.
Sane voices against unconstitutional methods are not only being ignored but decried. Citizens have reconciled to a failed criminal justice system and thus not only do they elect MPs and MLAs with gory criminal records but also applaud extra judicial killings. A course correction is seriously needed at this crucial juncture.
Most of the police officers I have worked with are highly critical of these extremely dangerous “short-cuts”. However, at the police station level, they have more acceptance as the staff routinely deal with criminals and goons most of whom have either political clout or patronage. Some despise them and shed no tears when they are done away with, while many cultivate them to secure prize postings through their influence. Politicians play a very powerful role at police stations, compromising both integrity and impartiality of field staff. In due course, ordinary criminals graduate to be dreaded ones and form gangs extorting money, grabbing land, threatening witnesses in criminal cases, etc.
The culture of “encounters” to deal with treacherous criminal gangs had become very popular in Mumbai during the Nineties only to realise that the so-called “encounter specialists” had slowly shifted their loyalties to politicians, builders and land grabbers – the oath to the uniform was forgotten. The MCOC was thus enacted to tackle serious crimes instead of using the gun. Special courts too were created to try organised crime. Many states in the country have adopted the same Act against serious crime. Though pendency here is increasing, it is a legal and logical solution to tackle serious crime. But admittedly, it can be refined further.
In this bleak scenario, our reaction as citizens should be to demand more courts, judges and judicial infrastructure and not to encourage “encounters”, which we seem to be applauding. In fact, the use of technology — as often stated by the current Chief Justice of India — is a potent weapon to ensure speedy trials. Let us build up public opinion for the introduction of online court hearings at all levels. It shall curtail frequent adjournments and reduce the trial duration. Court production of jail inmates can also be online and relieve police from escort duties. For minor ailments, telemedicine facilities can be used for persons in custody. This will result in more police persons being available on the ground.
Police officers need to be regularly trained about the Constitution and human rights so that they do not resort to their guns. It is unfortunate that after their basic police training, very few officers undergo in-service courses either in law or investigation. Of late, online training is becoming popular in many state police organisations. As per the Bureau of Police Research and Development, vacancies in police all over the country range at around 20 per cent. Police station officers are thus reluctant to relieve their field staff for training in police academies. Online training modules can bridge the gap.
The road ahead is long and winding. I see technology and public pressure for an efficient criminal justice system to be the civilised alternative to the gung-ho gun culture. It is in the interest of the most populous country in the world to invest in training its law enforcers and equip its judiciary with sufficient resources. Else, we must be ready to face anarchy and jungle raj.
The writer is former Chief of Crime Branch Mumbai and Commissioner of Police Pune
Share
