Same protection of law for all

First test of Democracy 

DC Pathak

(The writer is a former Director Intelligence Bureau)

A democratic dispensation is validated by the election of a political executive on the basis of universal franchise or 'one man one vote' and its built-in 'secularism' is defined by the two basic responsibilities of the State – securing every citizen against crime and providing him or her an equal opportunity of economic growth. Between security and development, security comes first sequentially and there is therefore little doubt that governance stands to lose credibility first and foremost on the law-and-order count in case there is a failure either to prevent a serious riot or take prompt and effective police action against the perpetrators of a brutal crime like lynching or the case of murderous assault on a young woman reportedly carried out by local rogues in a village of Hathras in Uttar Pradesh.

The horrific character of the Hathras crime as reported in the media first, led to a rare intervention of the Prime Minister of India himself who called for stringent punishment for the culprits without delay. Since murder is a reality, the case had to be taken to its logical conclusion of justice – notwithstanding different 'versions' of the incident put in circulation subsequently. Also, political games unsurprisingly played on it would have to be tackled appropriately and effectively without letting go of the seriousness of the crime itself. Using a crime incident for fomenting caste or communal violence for political gain is in itself a heinous offence. The basic point behind the Hathras case is the failure of the district police to establish the character of the crime within the first 48 hours and then follow up on it on a professional note – in our law, a superior in the hierarchy above Station House Officer can exercise the latter's powers of investigation to guide the case and this is why the role of the SP came under scrutiny.

The matter of all citizens in a democracy having an equal protection of law has three angles of special significance in the Indian context. First, even though law and order is a state subject in our constitutional scheme of things, there is no gainsaying the fact that grave failures of the states on the crime front damage the national image of the country before the world and become a serious concern of the Centre too. Secondly, a large segment of our crime graph has traditionally connected with the socio-political problem of caste antagonism – the gun or lathi-wielding caste groups had still not shed the historical feudal traits and they tended to presume that if the rulers were of the same caste, this gave them the license to suppress the weaker lot.

Yogi Adityanath, as the Chief Minister, had not shown caste proclivity but in the North Indian setting a demonstrable political will is needed to sternly deal with the caste malaise wherever it came in the way of law enforcement. And finally, there are known deficiencies in our crime management that have worked to the advantage of criminals and put the deviants less and less in the fear of law. The Modi government has generally appreciated the role of the police in safeguarding internal peace. The Centre should, therefore, get all these aspects seriously examined so that the nation stands on a strong footing as a democracy. Prime Minister Modi has done well in the fields of development, international relations and foreign policy and along with the Home Minister – who has a reputation for bold and effective actions – can take strategic initiatives about making India a safer place, particularly for women. Somewhere this is a requirement too of India's development because of its bearing on domestic and foreign investments.

Politicization of crime can dent India's democratic image at a time when Prime Minister Modi's single-handed effort had enabled this country to acquire a major say in global affairs and emerge as an acknowledged advocate of world peace. In view of this, some considered steps can be taken at the national level to improve the administration of law and order in the country. First of all, the Centre must exercise its valid share of responsibility in ensuring that the right persons were appointed as the Chief Secretary and DGP of the state. These officials are drawn from the IAS and IPS respectively – the highest civil services of the country whose equivalent does not exist anywhere else in the world. What is special about these officers is that their recruitment, training and service orientation is handled by the Centre before they are placed in the administration of the states. A diminishing interest of Delhi in the monitoring of the performance of senior IAS and IPS officers is a reality and this is one of the reasons behind the decay that had inflicted these prime national assets of India's famed 'steel frame'. These services were even more important in independent India where their empowerment was to combine with a pro-people orientation – the All-India civil services have to move further towards this mission. The law-and-order administration has not been able to free itself from extraneous influences and this hurts the cause of democracy.

The Supreme Court had in July 2018 showed light to the Centre by laying down that there will be no 'officiating DGP' in the state and that the State government will make a choice of the DGP from amongst a three-member panel to be drawn up by UPSC in consultation with the state. That a similar approach should be followed for appointment of the Chief Secretary is a logical validation. The decline of the state administrative and police machinery, wherever it is happening, is primarily because of the weaknesses existing at the levels of Chief Secretary and DGP – for reasons that are not far to seek. The first administrative and police reform would be to restore the power and accountability of the chiefs of state administration and the police – at present they cannot even suspend a tehsildar or thanedar for an unforgivable misconduct or failure.

The main reason for an unsatisfactory law-and-order situation in the states, however, is the inadequacy of civil police in terms of strength, quality of personnel and resources required for mobility, forensic back-up and instant communication. The ratio of number of policemen per lakh of population in India is 198 – far less than the global average and since it includes armed police in the calculation the civil police numbers become pathetically low. India has, in recent years, added to the armed police strength only. The police stations are supposed to be attuned to the local population but they are unable to assign beats to their constables and head constables for striking a grid of trust with the law-abiding citizens of their areas.

A rural police station should be able to send a policeman to every village at least twice a week for this purpose. Senior officers of the police, who generally belonged to the IPS, are hardly making any contribution to functionally upgrade the thana – there are few surprise visits or supervisory directions during the investigation of serious cases of crime. The aloofness of senior officers from police stations is a principal reason why the SHOs feel tempted to befriend local politicians for mutual gain. In India, the government should give preference to recruitment to defence forces and civil police for some time to come. Since the police is often the first responder in events relatable to national security, there should be new norms of recruitment, training and performance evaluation for Station House Officers and their staff. India should spend more on police stations – particularly on the equipment they must have for responding to a crime with urgency. The country should move towards placing police stations directly in charge of gazetted officers.

Further, as many of the suggested reforms are processed for implementation, there is a need for the government to demonstrate its total unwillingness to put up with 'rogue' policemen. In regard to the systemic weakness of our policing machinery, it should be emphasized that the fundamental test for police is whether law abiding citizens rush to it in distress or shun it because of the impression that the police station, for reasons of corruption or external influence, will not do justice to them. It may be necessary to identify a member of the law-and-order machinery who subverted the policing function out of personal greed or external influence. Rogue policemen exist in all societies but the way some of them got away literally with murder is a concern that has to be flagged. Apart from holding the Chief Secretary and DGP accountable for their share of responsibility in not establishing a deterrent against serious crimes such as gang rapes and murders in public, the Centre should pave the way for dismissal of a rogue cop without enquiry under Art 311 of the Constitution in an exemplary case – the legitimate ground here would be that the act caused an adverse impact on the internal security and stability of the country.

Let the Centre give a clear message to the states that repeated failures on the law-and-order front would not be allowed to mar the progress of the Indian nation. This has become important because for some time to come, Covid's adverse impact on crime will be reflected in local goons, including unemployed youth, indulging in crime like rape of minors in a neighbourhood setting – possibly emboldened by the thought that the police, like other wings of the government, had slowed down during the pandemic. The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) meanwhile, would do well to study the impact of corona crisis on the crime situation to enable the states to do the needful in the matter – it seems there is a sharp increase in digital frauds and also a rise in crime against person and property in certain states. (IANS)