(Combat Law
June - July 2007)
Bombay Pogrom: Srikrishna Report Dumped
-- Combat Law Team,
Years after the Srikrishna Commission came out with its report that indicted 31 police officers for their role in the 1992-93 Mumbai riots, no significant action has been taken against these police officers. Below is an overview of the actions initiated, or avoided, in the wake of a petition filed in the court for follow up action. An analysis by Combat Law team
Combat Law team
Mumbai’s communal carnage of 1992-93 aggravated by the shameful role played by the police has brought the need for India to squarely confront the issue of institutionalised communalism. There were numerous violent incidents all around Mumbai and several people died in police firing, making it a confrontation between Muslims and the police rather than a Hindu–Muslim showdown as it was made out to be.
Though there were some impartial police officers, one cannot deny the strong anti–Muslim bias largely shown by the Mumbai Police. The Srikrishna Commission, set up by the government after the riots, had indicted 31 police personnel right from the rank of the deputy commissioner of police to constables.
A public interest petition filed by Shakeel Ahmed and another in the Supreme Court has thrown some light on the present status of indicted police officers. This petition seeks that the central as well as the state government of Maharashtra accept and act upon the findings of the commission among other things.
Srikrishna Commission
This communal outbreak nearly half a decade ago in the city was no ordinary riot. They were systematically organised by the Hindu communal forces on an unprecedented scale. These riots had shaken the whole world by not only their scale but also the brutalities committed. Thousands of Muslims were killed and their property looted and destroyed. To probe these riots the government of Maharashtra, on the advice of the central government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry headed by Justice BN Srikrishna, under Sections 3 and 5 of the Commission of Enquiries Act, 1952.
Communal outbreak nearly half a decade ago in Mumbai was no ordinary riot. It was systematically organised by the Hindu communal forces on an unprecedented scale
The commission’s report found specific police officers to be “utterly trigger happy”, “guilty of unnecessary and excessive firing resulting in the deaths of innocent Muslims”, “extremely communal” and “guilty of inhuman and brutal behaviour”. They had been “responsible for allowing a violent mob to hack to death amongst others Abdul Razak and actively aided and connived with the mob”. It accused them of going on a “rampage” and “attempting to shield miscreants belonging to the Shiv Sena”, and “openly indulging in riots while carrying naked sword along with Shiv Sena activists”. Some of these officers had “suppressed evidence,” “mislead senior police officers,” “looted articles and furniture” and “allowed kidnapping of an 18-year-old girl and brutal murder of a handicapped person.” In short, they were “communally biased against Muslims.” The commission had recommended strict action against the police officers and observed that the lapses in the investigations were not
merely cases of negligence but deliberate attempts to suppress material evidence and sabotage the probe into violent incidents.
Findings ignored
However, petitioner Shakeel Ahmad (and also Jyoti Punwani as a journalist), on looking into the Action Taken Report of the Maharashtra government, found that most of the officers against whom Justice Srikrishna passed severe strictures were in fact promoted. Many were granted anticipatory bail. All were released on bail with the public prosecutor often not arguing for their detention. RD Tyagi, a joint-commissioner of police at the time of the riots, was, according to Srikrishna Commission, not at all justified in killing unarmed and innocent nine bakery workers on January 9, 1993; he merrily continued in service and retired as DIG. He has also been discharged from a case that was initiated against him. He was appointed to this high post by the Shiv Sena-BJP government at the instance of Bal Thackeray.
There was obviously heavy communal bias in his appointment. In fact, the hidden message was that a communal outfit will reward the person who kills innocent members of the minority community. Not surprisingly, Tyagi even joined the Shiv Sena after his retirement and contested the Rajya Sabha election unsuccessfully with the support of Shiv Sena.
Further, not a single policeman spent a single day in the police lock-up or jail. In the few instances where the departmental inquiries were completed the punishments imposed were farcical, such as reduction in rank or cut in increments; a few junior constables were compulsorily retired.
Despite Justice Srikrishna’s detailed inquiry and strictures, most were exonerated departmentally. On the criminal prosecution front too it was the same sad story. FIRs were not registered in many cases. Chargesheets were not filed. Like earlier commission reports, this time too the reports of the Commissions of Enquiry were treated like wastepaper. Though headed by senior judges of the high courts or senior administrators, their meticulous findings were ignored. The fact that under the Commissions of Enquiry Act (1952) the reports are not binding was wrongly taken to mean that governments could do, as they like with the reports, rejecting sound suggestions and findings.
Not only the provisions of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, but a higher power, Article 14 of the Constitution, informs government action, requiring governments to act rationally and not arbitrarily. The findings are indeed not binding, but from there to the proposition that the government can disregard commission reports at will is a long jump. What the section means is that governments can depart from the commission findings, but only for good reason. Once the findings are accepted by a government, and no good reason can be shown for departure, going by Article 14, the government is bound to act in accordance with the commission’s report.
Cops in communal crimes
Moreover, Shakeel Ahmed in his petition has also raised the point that Article 311[2] of the Constitution of India confers an extraordinary power on the government to dismiss a government servant without a departmental inquiry where it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry, or where the President or governor are satisfied that it is not expedient to hold such an inquiry.
It is important to use this Article against police officers who engage in communal crimes. Commission reports come at the end of a lengthy inquiry where the policemen concerned are also heard. Thus, if the Commission of Enquiry finds them guilty they must be dismissed accordingly and the act of a departmental inquiry should be done away with. This kind of departmental enquiry is not practical as it is futile to expect witnesses to depose again after having already done so before the commission a long time back — more so as the enquiry is held by a colleague from the same department.
Similarly, in cases where departmental inquiries have to be conducted the central government should establish a special and autonomous disciplinary board consisting of senior police officers and non – police personnel as well. The proceedings of this board should be open to the public and autonomous cell of senior police officers should be set up who will be devoted solely to the prosecution of policemen.
Predator or protector?
If governments tend to protect such police officers, one can hardly hope that officers will play an effective role in curbing communal riots. And if the police play an openly partisan role as it did during the Bombay killings of 1992-93, it is doubtful whether killings can ever be prevented.
If the government is unable to give exemplary punishments to such police officers, it should at least desist from promoting them to high posts in the state. How can such police officers holding highest post be expected to be impartial in their behaviour?
|
