“Extrajudicial killings are symptomatic of an abject failure of our criminal justice system and also the impunity enjoyed by the police in an all-powerful State.”
These were the words justice Madan B Lokur used in foreword he wrote for a report titled “Extinguishing Law and Life: Police Killings and Cover-up in the State of Uttar Pradesh”.
The report has been prepared by three well-meaning collectives: Youth For Human Rights Documentation, Citizens Against Hate, and People’s Watch.
I would like to sum up the salient points from the original 165-page report in a condensed form, so that we may all think about the report and what it’s trying to tell us.
This report focuses on Uttar Pradesh (UP) and throws some light on how consent for state-sponsored murder is created, by implanting the false narrative of vigilante justice, and its effectiveness in dealing with crime.
Let’s Talk Numbers, People
Since March 2017, media estimates suggest that almost 8,472 instances of police firings occurred in the state of UP, resulting in the death of 146 people and injuries to 3,302 more.
After it received complaints from nine affected families and 12 civil society organisations, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) passed an order directing its investigation division to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into 17 cases, within four weeks.
In May 2018, when the NHRC began its probe, the death toll in these police shootings stood at 50. Three years later, around 100 more people have been killed by the police in a similar manner.
Meanwhile, the NHRC inquiries have either been closed without a thorough investigation, or remain pending to date—three years later.
The report examines these very cases and takes us through the various police narratives, magisterial enquiries and the NHRC’s own enquiries, to give us an overview of how various State functionaries come together to obscure justice.
Cops Get A Clean Chit In 16 Cases
Out of the 17 cases which were ordered to be probed, two cases are still pending and the status of one of them is not available in the public domain.
Moreover, 12 cases have been closed by the NHRC after finding “no foul play” on the part of the police; and one was transferred to the Uttar Pradesh State Human Rights Commission.
In only one case, the NHRC held that the deceased was killed in a “fake encounter” by the police i.e., in an extrajudicial manner. Here, an independent agency was directed to probe further and the state was ordered to pay a compensation to family of the victim of the extrajudicial killing.
In no other case was there an order for payment of compensation, despite Section 357A of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) mandating it, irrespective of whether the “encounter” was staged or genuine.
Legitimising Illegitimate Killings
The United Nations’ (UN) special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, professor Christof Heyns, critiqued the very terminology of “encounter”. Prof Heyns asserted that an extrajudicial killing should be seen as a grave human rights violation—which it actually is, according to international law.
Governments across the nation and party lines, have refused to acknowledge the prevalence of “extrajudicial killings” and routinely deny any illegality in killings of this nature.
This means that police and other security forces are granted a relatively free hand to “employ” these as a tactic to quell political dissent, in various contexts of disturbances and conflicts.
The chief minister (CM), Yogi Adityanath’s official Twitter handle celebrated the increase in extrajudicial killings in the state on various occasions. The report underlines how these words create a sense of pride in both, the executive and the general populace, about the increasing number of murders at the hands of the UP police.
“Agar aparadh karenge, toh thok diye jayenge (if someone commits a crime, they will be shot).” These words were uttered by Adityanath in an interview to India TV in June 2017.
The “encounter policy” of the CM, police statements, statements by other senior politicians and influential figures in the state, build citizens’ consent towards vigilante justice.
Citizens start buying into the idea of “spot justice” i.e., the idea that encounters are the key to efficiently solving various issues in the state.
Words Have Power And So Does The FIR
In accordance with Article 21 of the Indian constitution, the Supreme Court (SC) has denounced extrajudicial killings. Further, guidelines were laid down by the NHRC (2003 and 2010), followed by those issued by the SC in its “PUCL vs the State of Maharashtra” judgment (2014).
The report concluded that based on the guidelines, major discrepancies have been found in the aforementioned 17 cases. It found blatant brutality and outright, criminal neglect on the part of police officers of almost all ranks, magistrates and even the NHRC itself.
The FIRs (first information report) were registered against the accused and not the police officers who shot them, in all 17 cases. The implications of this can be understood from the closure reports (a closure report is needed to close the case in a situation when no crime can be proved, or when the identity of the accused is not clear).
In 16 of the 17 cases, the closure report was filed by the investigating officer. The closure reports claim that the police was firing in self-defence. Basically, the closure reports lacked ballistic and forensic evidence—they were based entirely on the police’s version of events.
The ballistics postmortem report, in the case involving Noor Muhammad, shows bullet wounds through Muhammad’s abdomen and chest. If the police were firing in self-defense in close range, why did they shoot him in the abdomen and not his legs? Muhammad’s case is just one among many.
The Need For Better Accountability
In the rare case where the existing guidelines were followed to a tee, it is to be noted that the guidelines themselves fall short of the “Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death” (2016). The NHRC consists of cops and as laid out by many Indian courts, they feel “bound by their ties of brotherhood.”
The trauma faced by the victims’ families has been completely overlooked by almost all the investigative agencies. Many of them are intimidated into staying quiet. They receive death threats.
There is a complete lack of a practical witness protection framework. Witnesses need to be protected from the very police who are tasked with their protection.
Not only do the family members have to cope with the death of a loved one and their own mental health issues, they have to accept that their loved one’s killers are roaming around scot-free.
The report highlights the need for further, stronger judicial framework and scholarly studies in the area. As it succinctly states in its conclusion: “When encounters are rendered into policy, even the fig leaf of self-defense falls away, exposing naked lawlessness.”
Featured image, a still from the Bollywood film Singham, is for representational purposes only. Photo credit: koimoi.com
Note: The author is part of the Sept-Nov ’21 batch of the Writer’s Training Program.