The practice of using extra-constitutional methods to tackle criminals and crime is usually perceived as a necessary evil. There is little public remorse when criminals become targets in ‘encounters’, as the prevalent feeling is that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. There is, however, a price to be paid for digressing from the rule-book and two recent cases highlight the problem. In Mumbai, ‘encounter specialist’ Daya Nayak finds himself fending off charges that he was in the take of gang leaders whose rivals he had bumped off in the name of ridding the city of criminals. In Punjab, police chief S.S. Virk is fending off charges that one-time terrorist Sukhwinder Singh ‘Sukhi’ was let off in 1993.
Mr Nayak, accused of shoring up assets whose source can’t be explained, wants everyone to believe that he has been framed by senior IPS officials and seniors jealous of his rapid rise in the force. Mr Virk, on his part, after initially denying that he had allowed Sukhi to escape in a police-orchestrated ‘encounter’, insists that his decision was part of a government strategy to rehabilitate terrorists. In both cases, one is left none the wiser as to whether we should believe them or not. And that is essentially the danger of straying from the beaten — and, at times, very exasperating — track of the rulebook. When those entrusted to uphold the law turn to the path of vigilantism, the line of what is legal and what is illegal gets blurred — at times with dangerous consequences.
No doubt it is officialdom that sanctions these unofficial ‘deviations’. But when these ‘deviations’ take on a semi-official sheen of their own, there can be parties that take advantage in this grey area. It would be naive to believe that all such extra-constitutional players will have a noble purpose in mind. It is doubly difficult to prove purpose behind an act when the latter is conducted without official checks and balances. Following the Constitution-mandated law of the land can be tiresome and a frustrating impediment to justice. But like democracy, constitutional rules have an in-built safety switch. This may not be the best option to provide justice, but at least it prevents injustice that remains hidden from the public eye.
{{/usCountry}}No doubt it is officialdom that sanctions these unofficial ‘deviations’. But when these ‘deviations’ take on a semi-official sheen of their own, there can be parties that take advantage in this grey area. It would be naive to believe that all such extra-constitutional players will have a noble purpose in mind. It is doubly difficult to prove purpose behind an act when the latter is conducted without official checks and balances. Following the Constitution-mandated law of the land can be tiresome and a frustrating impediment to justice. But like democracy, constitutional rules have an in-built safety switch. This may not be the best option to provide justice, but at least it prevents injustice that remains hidden from the public eye.
{{/usCountry}}