The Supreme Court recently observed that the police could certainly do more to display greater sensitivity to human rights. This was not the first time that the apex court was voicing this sane advice. But I wonder whether such polite advice is enough to reform sections of the police which still believe it is their divnine right to use unauthorised and downright illegal force against crime suspects. It is a tragedy that such unconscionable treatment is sometimes meted out also to those who had invited the wrath of government by taking an anti-establishment posture on critical public issues.
I also wonder whether the well-meant advice from the judiciary from time to time percolates down the ranks of the Leviathan that the Indian Police has become. (We have now more than two million policemen, including those from paramilitary forces, and more than 17,000 police stations.) Judicial pronouncements such as the recent one should be mandatorily brought to the attention of the grassroots (constabulary) by senior officers who cannot give excuses such as lack of time for not communicating critical judicial advice aimed at refining the quality of police service. Audio and video devices can be imaginatively used for this purpose.
Difficult duty
The Supreme Court and the police are two establishments which perform the most difficult of public functions. This is so not only in India but the world over. I am writing this piece within days of an ugly incident in the heart of London in which a mob of Khalistani protesters disturbed the public peace by breaking the cordon thrown in by the Metropolitan Police and other security agencies to protect our Foreign Minister visiting the city to hold discussions with the British government. This incident alone highlights the complexity of the job performed by the police. If the latter did not use maximum force to rein-in the demonstrators they would have been accused of soft-pedalling unruly behaviour. On such occasions how does one draw the line between optimum force and an excessive display of police authority that frequently triggers the charge of violation of fundamental rights?
There is no scientific formula to determine how much force a policeman can use in the field. While there is a thin red line that the police cannot breach even under the gravest provocation by anti-social elements, there are no limits to vandalism unleashed by the latter against policemen. This is what annoys the riot police and their families. One saw this at the Capitol Hill in Washington DC on January 6, 2021, when pro-Trump demonstrators went berserk.
There are now reports the Trump administration is going after dedicated policemen who discharged their duty zealously on that tumultuous day. Here, while the judiciary could sit in judgment over alleged police misconduct, much after an event, policemen will have to be moderate and well-behaved while tackling violent rioters who were intent on destroying public property and dismantling a system established by the Constitution, the most sacred feature of a parliamentary democracy.
The scales are uneven with the judiciary at all levels quick to pull up the police whenever they misbehave. Many senior policemen are unhappy about what they view as uncharitable judicial criticism which ignores the pressure-cooker situation under which a modern policeman functions. Policemen do not naturally go public to voice their grievances vis-a-vis judges. Their concealed discontent is that they are not heard attentively before the judiciary criticises them. Unfortunately, there is no way we can legislate for this delicate situation or institutionalise it. There is a lacuna here that impairs relationships.
Judiciary-police relationship is critical. Lamentably, it usually remains formal if not hostile. Ultimately, only a mature leadership can steer things forward without police-judiciary communication breaking down totally.
The writer is a former CBI Director
