As the showering of proverbial petals on the Telangana policemen — who gunned down four, accused of allegedly gang-raping and burning to death a young woman veterinarian in Hyderabad — showed, the summary execution of alleged criminals in circumstances which are outside the legal process enjoy a wide measure of popular support.
The reason for such an attitude underlining a sense of revenge and retribution among people who would normally be skeptical of what the police say or do is their impatience over the sluggish, excessively rule-bound judicial system, which takes an inordinately long time to come to a decision on heart-rending matters which shake the people to their core.
In such cases, the laborious examination of witnesses and forensic details and the seemingly endless arguments and counter-arguments by black-robed lawyers — appear to be a senseless waste of time, tantamount to an insult to the victim’s memory. The Shakespearean adage of “law’s delay” is unacceptable to most people in these instances. Hence, the preference for instant punishment.
It is possible, however, that such an attitude in favour of what is called a “kangaroo court trial” is the result not only of the long time that is taken by the courts to come to a decision while the culprits live in jails as the government’s “guests”, as critics of the legal process say, but also because various factors have tended to erode the concept of the rule of law in general, paving the way for mob justice as in the cases of lynchings as well as fake encounters.
For the average citizen going about his daily business, the rule of law is honoured more in the breach than in observance. Whether it is the payment of bribes to have one’s way in official or business transactions or the fear of officialdom at all levels, and especially of the police, the common man comes to believe over a period of time that it is not law which matters but money and might.
This impression is strengthened by the seclusion of the politicians from hoi polloi because of their quasi-royal lifestyle of which their gun-toting guards are a symbol. It is in such an atmosphere of awe and subservience that the act of the Swedish king and queen carrying their own luggage while disembarking from an Air India flight evokes wide-eyed surprise and admiration.
Evidently, Europeans have succeeded in overcoming their earlier adoration of the “divine rights of kings”. The exalted status of the monarchs which was behind the 16th century diktat, cuius regio, eius religio (the ruler decides his country’s religion), has yielded place to the present-day precept, be ever so high, the law is above you.
In India, a mixture of feudal instincts and colonial-era habits has led to politicians believing themselves to be above the law. Not only that, they also feel entitled to mould the rules and regulations of autonomous institutions to fit their requirements, turning them into “caged parrots”, as the Supreme Court said about the CBI.
The result is an erosion of faith in the professionally-run bodies, especially the police and investigative agencies, thereby undermining the cornerstone of the rule of law which is the basis of democracy. What is more, such bodies themselves begin to believe that their duty is to serve the politicians and not abide by the law.
The emergence of “encounter specialists” is the outcome of this belief among policemen that they need not follow the law if their lords and masters among politicians do not want them to do so. What is curious, however, is that the corrosion of the rule of law justifies in the eyes of the ordinary people the arbitrary acts of the police such as staged encounters. The rationalization apparently is that if there is no rule of law, it cannot be broken.
But there is an irony here. It is no secret that the police are not the most popular of the government agencies. Most people, especially the poorer sections, avoid them as far as possible, for they know that their illegalities have no remedies. Yet, they are egged on and congratulated when a fake encounter takes place.
Behind this attitude is possibly the fact that the value of the rule of law has not been adequately propagated and imbibed by the people. Their reactions are seemingly on a case by case basis. While staying away from a force which was called an organized band of criminals by an Allahabad high court judge, A.N. Mulla, in 1955, the people do not seem to mind if they run amok against a specific target.
In a way, such conduct can be expected in an imperfect democracy. In a communist or theocratic country, flowers will not be showered on the police, for the people are aware what the total absence of legal restraints means. (IPA Service)
Law Enforcement Needs To Wake Up To India’s Rape Epidemic 