Font size: 
In the past year, there has been an increase in the number of these killings throughout India. The latest illegal act of violence, however, has a twist. It was an assistant commissioner of police in New Delhi, Rajbir Singh, who was shot dead on March 24, allegedly by a petty property dealer.
Even more mysteriously the weapon, a .32-caliber revolver, was issued to a fellow officer, an assistant superintendent of police, Ashok Seoran. This officer later claimed that he lost his weapon in July 2007 in a cornfield while he was chasing a criminal.
The murdered officer has been responsible in his career for 56 murders, all categorized as "encounter killings." Such a record, however, is not an exception in India. Each year at least two dozen encounter killings are reported. In plain, commonsense language, these are killings for which the police have accepted responsibility but the officer, instead of being punished, is in fact promoted for his achievement.
There are police officers in India like Pradeep Sharma, who holds the current record of having killed 104 people, and Daya Nayak, who has reportedly murdered 82 people. Sharma was featured in an article in Time magazine in which he was lauded as a "specialist officer," whereas a film was made on Nayak's life. Nayak is also infamous for being suspected as a corrupt officer -- also not an unusual figure in India.
Encounter killings are considered a necessity by the Indian authorities. Under the pretext of controlling crime, the authorities in India have thus far justified such acts as "doctrinally acceptable." Such a concept is not new to India. Three hundred years before Christ, in the book "Arthasastra" that deals with state policy, Kautilya also justified the act of murdering the enemy, even arbitrarily, if it was required to preserve and protect something more important -- in Kautilya's world, the king and his kingdom. But this was an exception.
Concerning encounter killings, however, the accused in most cases is killed in a gunfight in which the circumstances hardly differ one from another. This is becoming all too common.
No law in India justifies encounter killing. According to the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, only reasonable force can be used by a law enforcement officer while apprehending a suspect. In encounter killings, the often-reported story is that the accused was shot dead in an exchange of gunfire where the accused always fires first at the police or tries to escape from custody using force.
The Constitution of India guarantees fair, just and equitable procedures in all criminal cases. This guarantee was reiterated in the Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1978. Additionally, India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979. The ratification of this covenant not only binds India to respect Article 6 (right to life) and Article 9 (right to liberty and security) domestically, but also to promote them globally.
The general public, particularly the middle class, is apparently oblivious about the impact of encounter killings on society. In a caste-dominated, pseudomorality-driven society like that of India, such a "necessary evil" gets an easy pass as long as it does not affect oneself.
These arbitrary executions of suspects by law enforcement agencies, however, are a blot upon the justice system in any country. In jurisdictions where law enforcement agencies are subjected to strict discipline, encounter killings are rarely reported. If an incident occurs, an independent inquiry is quickly initiated. Even the slightest variation from the rule in using fatal force by a law enforcement officer is seriously dealt with. These are financially developed nations where the general public's perception of the rule of law is very high.
In short, the link between the rule of law, the public perception of safety and a well-disciplined law enforcement agency is inseparable. This theory applies in principle and practice regardless of the jurisdiction. A cursory glance at these indicators in countries where similar patterns of encounter killings are reported proves this factor, whether the country is Indonesia, the Philippines or Sri Lanka. None of these states can be a model for India to follow, given their human rights records. The question then is, can India adopt such a strategy of arbitrary execution of suspects, and should Indians keep silent about it?
The manner in which these clandestine executions are reported in the media also "softens" public opinion. The phrases used for reporting these killings carry some common words like "dreaded criminal" and "most wanted terrorist." These tailor-made qualifiers that run next to the names of those who are killed send the wrong message to the average reader -- that the murdered person is not worthy to live anyway. The unanswered question, however, is who should decide whether a person is a "dreaded criminal" or a "terrorist." If it is either the police or a news editor, then India could save millions of rupees that are used to maintain its courts.
Law enforcement agencies are better off as long as they are disciplined and checked by acceptable norms and regulations. Under the cover of a well-choreographed public and media stunt, police officers in India are given complete freedom to "bounce off" whomever they choose. This illegal and despicable tactic, which was used earlier in the states of Punjab and Maharashtra, is now used throughout India.
Unless encounter killing is denounced and contained immediately, law enforcement will soon spiral out of control and will lose its meaning, if it has not already. At that juncture, yearning to bring these uniformed criminals to justice will be like trying to treat a dead child.
--
(Bijo Francis is a human rights lawyer currently working with the Asian Legal Resource Center in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the South Asia desk at the center. Mr. Francis has practiced law for more than a decade and holds an advanced master's degree in human rights law.)
