Police State

For those interested in the exact text of the charges made out by the Koramangala police (attached to the FIR), the same may be accessed here (page-1; page-2).

The protest was staged on Sunday, the 27th May, morning. The previous afternoon, an application had been made out to the Koramangala police, seeking permission for the same. The permission was denied, and we were told instead to stage the protest at the Freedom Park, if we wanted to.

Now, this is the part that needs to be questioned. Why should a permission (and, not just informing) be necessary for holding a peaceful protest at the venue (or, anywhere else even, except perhaps some notified areas) where the act (the reason for the protest) was perpetrated?

Whatever, since it had also become an emotional issue with the residents, a decision was taken to stage the protest all the same, taking utmost care not to provide alibi of any kind to the police to frame any kind of charges, whatsoever. There were close to 350 participants, including a large contingent of doctors, nurses, and students from St John's hospital, apart from the Koramangala residents. Everything went off most peacefully, and by around 12 noon, it was all over.

Somewhere along, the Koramangala police however chose to make out an FIR, and by 3.30 PM the same afternoon, had the judicial process set in motion by filing the FIR with the magistrate (as seen in the case description). We had no reason to believe that the police would pursue such a step. It was only 4 days later, on Thursday, that we came to know about it.

The offences listed being cognizable, any time the police could walk into the residences of the accused, and take them into custody. As such, we immediately got in touch with our lawyers, and, by next afternoon, the accused were presented before the magistrate, and anticipatory bail obtained.

Earlier, when I had questioned the official (PSI), who wrote out the FIR (when I went to collect a copy of it), as to how he could make out a charge of "rioting", his immediate response was that derogatory terms like "bloody police" etc were being aired by the protestors. I then told him that he should have made out a charge for that, rather than for rioting. He then changed tack to say that, if I wanted to question anybody, I must talk to the superiors (he specifically mentioned ACP/ DCP), without whose instructions such cases are generally not booked. The next day, in fact, a very senior member of the community went over to meet the DCP. The DCP seemed to suggest that he was not even aware of it all, and, after checking out the details, in fact, has offered to foreclose it by filing a "B" report, soon.

The PSI had also mentioned that they were generally instructed not to act on the FIR. So, essentially, it was an intimidatory tactic, largely to convey the message that "either you behave, or we will get you" - kind of hanging the Democle's sword over your neck.

The surprising part is that the gentlemen concerned, who are generally in the forefront of most of the community activities, have been maintaining very cordial relationship with the police, all these years. As such, it is inconceivable that the police could have initiated such drastic steps, on their own. So, is one then to understand that the politicos pursuing the project, egged on by the contractors, were behind it all? Even so, can the police act in such ways? Where is the accountability? The more and more, one thinks about it, the more and more one gets the feel that the matter needs to be taken to the SHRC, if at least to see that the police thinks a lot more before taking such drastic steps, in future.

Actually, equally tortuous as the jail experience can be, which at worst lasts just 2 nights (if, over a week-end, or more, in case of intervening court holidays), being a bailable offence, is the court procedure, which can stretch on for years on end. And, being a criminal case, you'll generally need to make personal appearances in the court for each hearing. The lawyer handling the case was telling me that, in case the police chose to file a charge-sheet, then we should expect a minimum of two years before achieving closure, even in as "open & shut" a matter as this ( I personally know of another case which is currently running its 4th year, and closure seems still quite some time away). In the meanwhile, with your having to disclose the fact of a criminal case pending against you, your passport and visa applications can run into jeopardy.

May be, this incident provides a lesson, as well as an oppotunity, to the Civil Society to start examining the various provisions leading upto such situations, challenging them, and having the necessary correctives pursued.
 

Police in Karnataka will stop being a law unto themselves if a new ordinance is enforced strictly. The ordinance amends the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, to introduce a host of measures to ensure that the guardians of law don’t become its violators. The ordinance, gazetted on June 1, empowers the state government to set up a security commission and complaints authorities at the state and district levels. While the state security commission will ensure the police function within the framework of law, the complaints authorities will look into allegations of human rights abuses against police officers of all ranks.

- - - The state complaints authority will have three members: a chairman selected from a panel of three retired HC judges set up on the recommendation of the high court chief justice; a retired public servant not below the rank of principal secretary; and a civil-society representative.

For the full report in the ToI, click here.

Surprising coincidence; and none-too-early a step.