Police control of students protestors : A perspective in ILPS agitation

N Brajakanta Singh *

A policemen during JCILPS imposed 18 hour bandh on March 16 2015 :: Pix - Shanker Khangembam

The killing of Sapam Robinhood, a class XI student of Ananda Singh Higher Secondary Academy, Nongmeibung, Imphal on 8 July 2015 by the Imphal East police has exposed the lack of rigorous training of crowd control and trigger-happy attitude of the police in the state.

The protest in which Robinhood took part was part of the ongoing peaceful agitations led by the JCILPS demanding introduction of a law to protect the indigenous people of the state by withdrawing the earlier bill passed by the state assembly. The taking out of procession by the students was neither to overawe by criminal force or show of force the legislature of the state nor to cause a disturbance of the public peace nor a rebellion to overthrow the lawfully established state government.

The incident clearly shows that there was excessive use of force by our police brothers which led to the death of S. Robinhood, a clear violation of precious right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The act of the police made us to think that our police were not properly trained in basics of criminal law dealing with use of force, crowd controlling and human rights education.

The acts of the police violate the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and other international standards. Section 129 of the CrPC provides that if protestors of an unlawful assembly did not disperse, they, if necessary, are to be arrested and confined.

It is to be remembered that if it is still not possible to disperse, the law enforcement personnel should use "as little force, and as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly and arresting and detaining such persons" with the authorization of a Magistrate or OC of a police officer. It is unlikely that the police officer commanding to control and disperse the students had instructed the subordinate personnel to shoot the protestors on their upper body parts in close range. It is also unlikely that in the instant case the actions of the police were authorized by any Magistrate (police PRO remains silent on the issue).

The degree of force which may be lawfully used in the suppression of a protest rally should depend upon the nature and circumstances of such rally not upon the immature thinking of the personal concerned. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) also under section 99 dealing with right of private defence in clear term states that "the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence". A precious life was taken away by merciless and trigger-happy police; a mother has lost his only son, an irreversible, unforgivable and unpardonable act.

Taking of life is not justified in the instant case because there were no circumstances which could justify the excessive use of force by the civil police. The excessive use of force on the ground of mob-violence will be a poor alibi in the present case. The wrongdoer police personnel must be disciplined or made to penitence.

Maintenance of law and order has been one of the traditional functions of the police. It is the responsibility of the police as the agent of law and upholder of the citizen's right and liberties must act without any hesitation or wavering to maintain the rule of law and public order. However, at the same time, if the fundamental causes of social unrest are not rooted out or tackled, no amount of police action can ensure a stable social peace and a state of tranquility. It is generally accepted fact that police cannot go to the root of the problem; at the best it can operate as a coercive process for a certain period of time.

The crossing beyond this boundary by the police will have a negative impact upon them. The full awareness of the socio-politico-economic causes of unrest would help the police in the performance of their duty in the maintenance of public order. A correct psycho-social assessment of a law and order situation would help them to perform their duty with dignity and restraint, while lack of such assessment may lead to unnecessary precipitation of an incident to their utter embarrassment, if not total discomfiture.

Senior police officers will not deny the fact that a crowd of excited people, laboring under a sense of grievance, is not a notorious mob and needs to be handled with tact and patience. A crowd of student protestors demanding introduction of a law to protect the indigenous population cannot be called a riotous mob simply because some people may be hurt or minor damages to property may occur.

Even though it may amount to a riotous assembly in strict technical sense, the undue harsh action of the police cannot turn it into a truly riotous mob. The practice of restraint by the police is not only desirable but also not violation of rule of law. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Supreme Court of India in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar (1987) had directed payment of Rs. 20,000/- for every case of death and Rs. 5,000/- for every injured person in police firing without prejudice to any just claim for compensation that may be advanced by relatives of victims.

Thus, the assessment of crowd psychology is a must for effective dealing of such protestors and application of correct measures in the light of such assessment will definitely and possibly avert a fatal incident of such nature. Excessive use of force is not warranted at the initial stage and if the dispersal can be effected by tear-gas or lathi-charge, recourse to firing is unjustified.

The incident also proved that the rubber bullets were dangerous in crowd control and a close range shooting in head or upper part of the body could be fatal. It is high time that plastic bullets should replace rubber bullets, as done in the United Kingdom, in dealing with non-violent protests. If state is committed to protect and guarantee the right to life to its citizens, excessive use of force in students' protests should be prohibited and anyone who violates the prohibition must be made jointly and severally accountable. It is also deemed necessary that use of firearms should be avoided against children and young people.

Our police brothers should remember that police go to disperse a crowd of student protestors to correct a situation in the interest of the public peace and not to punish the protestors.