ENCOUNTER v.

JUSTICE: THE REALITY

The recent Telangana rape case has divided the country into two sides, one that is overwhelmed
by the instant justice done and the other and slightly more legal minded side, questioning the
alleged encounter. The incident happened when Dr. Priyanka Reddy was raped and eventually
murdered by four men, while her vehicle had broken down in a secluded area. Later on, 6th
December the Cyberabad police, under the guidance of the Commissioner, VC Sajjanar made
headlines by killing the four accused of the gang rape. As recounted by the Telangana police,
they had apparently gone to the crime scene along with the 4 accused in the wee hours of the
morning to reconstruct and identify the crime scene. While the inspection was going on, the
accused persons allegedly snatched the weapons from the police personnel and opened fire at
them, to retaliate to which, the police had no option but to kill them in encounter.

There was never an ounce of doubt in the fact that rape and murder are the gravest of offences
and with the justice being delayed for several years in most of the cases, the public anger had
turned ugly and they lost sight of the fact that India is a democracy and it is bound by the
principles of the constitution that entails that every trial has to follow the due process of law
instead they chose blood lust over it.The technology has no doubt, allowed the people to put
forth their opinion before the court does, but that should not bias the police to carry out instant
justice by killing the suspects even before the case is proved against them and by totally
shattering the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

Instant justice as a term is an irony in itself because it does everything but justice. It is built
upon the idea of execution of the suspects on the basis of suspicion alone, without giving them
an opportunity to share their version of ‘what actually happened’. This fails us as a society, as
a country and foremostly as a democracy, as the spirit of democracy is destroyed at the point
where the ‘rule of law’ is violated.

Rule of law is contained in article 14 of the Indian Constitution and says that, “The state shall
not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.” The rule of law, originally given by Prof.Dicey says that no man is above
the law and since the state does not profess a particular religion, therefore it has to treat all the
citizens equally under the law and grant equal protection of law. However, the general trend in
the country seems to tell a different story altogether. While economically vulnerable accused
are butchered in staged encounters like in the Telangana case, the influential accused, in equally
gruesome cases, seem to go scot free and get bail easily, like in the Unnao rape case.
Instant justice in the Telangana rape case has done nothing but set wrong precedent. Now, if a
woman accuses somebody of raping her, then the first reaction of the public would be to lynch
that man on the basis of suspicion alone without investigating the actual matter. The country
has seen its fair amount of false rape cases and this case has added fuel to the fire of vengeance
and not justice.

Instant justice has rendered the courts and other judicial machineries of the country useless and
defunct. Does the public assuage all the rape victims? then why is that only gruesome cases
stir angry protests? Rape is rape, gruesome or not. And isn’t all rape torture? Does the victim
have to be murdered in a horrific way or mutilated to have the right to demand for justice?

Fake and controversial encounters have persisted in our country in clear violation of Article 21
which is a significant part of the fundamental rights. Article 21 entails that “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”

“the procedure established by law” as contained in this article must be just, fair and reasonable
which has an implied guarantee by the government to protect the citizen from unauthorized
assault or torture by the state, however when the entity which is supposed to protect the citizen
from such unauthorized actions, commit atrocities on the citizen itself, where would the citizen
go for protection? This is nothing but state sponsored terrorism. And this is not the first case,
where the police have misused their power.

In the case of Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India, the
petitioner had complied a list of alleged Extra-judicial killings which numbered approximately
1528 at the hands of police and security forces in the state of Manipur. Most of the people in
the list included innocent citizen who had no past criminal records.

Another sensational and controversial case is the case of The Ishrat Jahan encounter case in
which Indian Central Bureau Investigation had suspicion over the Ahmedabad Police Crime
Branch and officers of the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB) of Ahmedabad that they have
carried out a fake encounter of 4 people on 15 June 2004, the case is yet to be decided.
As Vice- President Naidu rightly said, “There cannot be instant justice, but there cannot be
constant delays either. “And to make the dream of speedy justice delivery system a reality, a
joint effort from the side of law enforcement agencies, law making authorities and the judiciary
is required. Below are some of the solutions provided to ensure that such instances do not
happen in future:

1. MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT RAPE CASES ARE DISPOSED AT A

PRIORITY RATE
Legislations must be enacted to ensure that rape victims are treated in a sensitive
manner when they lodge a FIR, swift action must be taken by the police, the fast
track courts must be revamped to ensure that rape cases are actually disposed at a
faster rate but at the same time in an efficient manner.

2. SENSITIZATIZING ALL STAKEHOLDERS

A sensitization programme should be formulated that should aim at sensitizing
police personnel, the general masses and the judiciary to deal with rape cases and
rape victims and special programmes for the police and the judiciary to detect false
rape cases.

3. STRICT PUNISHMENT FOR FAKE OR CONTROVERSIAL ENCOUNTERS:

The legislature along with guidance of the judiciary should make laws that punishes
law enforcement agencies with the harshest of punishments, if found guilty of fake
encounters.

To finally conclude, the graveness of the crime should not give the police the permission to
take the law into their own hands because that would lead the general mass of the country to
completely lose their faith in the justice delivery system. Moreover, it could result in the death
of innocent citizens, which is even more unfortunate. The country as a whole, must realise that,
the ‘instant justice’, that they are so vehemently celebrating may come after them also. Are
they ready for it?