Sometimes justice is not done, but is seen to be done. Like the judgment last week on the Batla House encounter. And sometimes justice is neither done nor seen to be done. Like in the case of Nambi Narayanan, former topnotch scientist falsely accused and jailed in the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) spy scandal of 1994, who resumed his long search for justice last month.
Narayanan wants action against three Kerala police officials who framed him as a spy and ruined his career. And the recent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chargesheet against Gujarat police officers stating that Ishrat Jahan and three others were killed in a staged operation by the police and Intelligence Bureau (IB) officers has given him hope for justice. In Narayanan’s case too, the CBI had stated that IB officials in collusion with the state police had framed him. For years the government did nothing. Finally, when pushed by Narayanan, it refused, because “it is not proper or legal to take disciplinary action against the officials… after a lapse of 15 years.”
How much do we value the rule of law if we repeatedly refuse to punish the guilty who have state protection? How committed are we to justice if we refuse to examine charges of injustice against state agents? And how deeply entrenched are we in falsehoods and felony that all political parties promote extra-judicial killings by rewarding and glamorising “encounter specialists”?
Take the curious judgment on the Batla House encounter where three citizens were shot dead under mysterious circumstances — two young students and a police inspector. Last week a Delhi court sentenced young Shahzad Ahmad to life imprisonment for killing inspector M.C. Sharma, famed “encounter specialist”, in that 2008 “encounter”. No one was tried for killing Atif, 17, and Sajid, 24, a student of Jamia Millia University.
Perhaps because they were terrorists? Well, the police could not establish that. Not even to the keenly receptive court. Even this court observed that there was “no evidence on record to establish that fact”. Never mind. “For the purpose of this case,” said the court, “it hardly matters as to whether the accused was affiliated to Indian Mujahideen or not.”
It does not matter if the slain boys were terrorists? If they were not, then shouldn’t we know who killed them and why? Instead, we laugh in the face of logic and assume that Shahzad, who says he was not even present at the site, had shot inspector Sharma, wriggled out of the tiny flat stuffed with gun-toting cops and dead students, and scooted. He had either jumped from the fourth floor of Batla House to the streets below, picked himself up in a jiffy, and fled unharmed through streets cordoned off by cops. Or he had scampered down several flights of stairs nudging past armed policemen blocking the narrow staircase — and gone straight home. To wait for the cops to come calling.
Never mind. The court was satisfied: “From the deposition of witnesses who were members of the raiding party, it is well proved that instead of assisting the police… the occupants of that flat including accused Shahzad Ahmad fired at the police party.” In short, the court declared that Shahzad must have fired at the police because the police say so. A less trusting court may not have resorted to such circular logic.
The absurdities of this judgment have been superbly documented by the Jamia Teachers Solidarity Association and other activists. Hopefully, all that will be taken into account by the justice system.
But how do we, law-abiding, democratic citizens who dislike violence, allow this bizarre system of extra-judicial killing? I am not saying that all police encounters are fake. I am saying that all encounter killings are extra-judicial killings and should be probed. I am saying that rewarding policemen for killing suspects goes against the very principles of justice.
Encounter killings are a violation of fundamental rights. The police is supposed to produce suspects in court. An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court. The police is not supposed to kill suspects. If they do, they need to prove that there was grave threat, that they had to fire in self-defence. So why do certain policemen in certain Special Cells of certain states need to routinely kill “in self-defence”? Should the department not take these frightened, jittery cops out of harm’s way and put them where they don’t feel so threatened?
Instead, these fearful policemen are given gallantry medals, and rise quickly through the ranks to become invincible. Like Pradip Sharma of Mumbai Police, famed for killing 112 suspects in “encounters”, accused of extortion and accumulating crores illegally, allegedly linked to Chhota Rajan and Dawood Ibrahim. And acquitted last month of all charges in the Lakkhan Bhaiya fake encounter case while the other 21 accused were jailed for life.
Nothing stops an encounter specialist. Except bullets. Like the much awarded M.C. Sharma. Like Sharma’s partner Rajbir Singh, shot dead a few months before him, apparently over a property deal. Or like Sharma’s colleague Badrish Dutt, shot dead recently along with his girlfriend.
Encounter killings defy constitutional guarantees and the primacy of right to life. Yet they are hardly investigated. Apparently, probes are bad for the morale of the police. Even the IB chief has complained to the government that the CBI’s findings about its role in Ishrat’s staged “encounter” was “disastrous for the morale of IB officers.”
Similarly, murders by security forces in disturbed areas must not be probed lest they hurt the Army’s morale. Does it ever occur to us that if we did our job right our “morale” would not be so fragile?
Instead we promote unlawful killings. Our media glorifies “encounter specialists” who “neutralise terrorists” (not “kill suspects”). Politicians fall over each other to honour them. Most Delhi leaders, from chief minister Sheila Dixit to BJP stalwart L.K. Advani, attended Sharma’s funeral. The Prime Minister sent a wreath. “Braveheart” Sharma, the “martyr”, was given the Ashok Chakra. His widow got Rs 25 lakh, a job and another Rs 11 lakh from the state. The tax on his family property was waived forever. BJP leaders claimed him as the heroic “Pandit Sharma”. And the media elevated him almost to the level of Mahatma Gandhi.
All for doing his job as an “encounter specialist”. If this is not promoting extra-judicial killings, what is?
The writer is the editor of The Little Magazine