Only the fear of punishment could check men in uniform from going berserk. Had there been a proper retribution for the guilty, custodial killings would not have taken place and unnamed graves would not have surfaced. In the absence of any accountability only that could happen what actually happened.
      Shielding the guilty cops in name of furthering ‘national interests’ has emboldened law enforcers to eliminate the ‘undesired’ elements. And when out of turn promotions and host of privileges and perks and ‘gallantry’ awards are there waiting  for such ‘courageous’ acts, every cop has a reason to get tantalized. After all which other industry can outsmart this fortune-making industry. Just waylay a person and pump bullets in his body in the dark hours of night and label him as ‘terrorist’. And swell in pride of an ‘encounter specialist’. This zero-investment enterprise wins them name, fame and money.
       But now the industry seems under a severe threat of losing the sheen and shine. It may go bankrupt.
       15th of May 2011, will go down as gala day in the judicial history of India. The Supreme Court has given a historic ruling and plugged nearly all the exit points for the killer cop involved in murdering of innocent people. The Apex Court bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, tightening the goose round the necks of the guilty security personnel , said: ‘We are of the view that in cases where a fake encounter is proved against policemen in a trial, that must be given a death sentence, treating it as the rarest of rare cases’. The phrase ‘rarest of rare’ is significant. It is only when gravity of the murder is considered as ‘rarest of rare’ cases’ that the court awards death sentence. The observation of the Apex Court has set a precedence: Fake encounters ‘must’ be treated as ‘rarest… cases’. And hence criminals be sent to gallows.
       Coming down harshly on the staged encounters, the two-member bench observed: ‘fake encounters are nothing but cold-blooded, brutal murder by persons who are supposed to uphold the law’. This  observation defines the savagery of the crime the perpetrators are committing. More so when the heinous crime is perpetrated by those who walk with a trust, the trust of safeguarding lives of innocent, the trust of upholding the law. What will happen when the fence starts grazing the field. The pain is felt deeper by court: ‘In our opinion if crimes are committed by the ordinary people, ordinary punishment be given, but if offense is committed by the policemen much harsher punishment should be given to them because they do act totally contrary to their duties’.
The court warns: ‘The trigger-happy policemen who think they can kill people in the name of an encounter and get away with it should know that gallows await them”. If on any occasion such erring law-maintaining personnel were held accountable they would make an excuse that they were following the orders of their superior bosses. But hats off to the learned Honorable Judges, they once for all chopped down such a plea: ‘They (guilty personnel) will not be excused for committing murder in the name of ‘encounter’ on the pretext that they were carrying out the orders of their Superior officers of politicians, however high’. The Apex Court has rightly referred to the Nuremburg trials, during which Nazi war criminals of the Second World War had taken the plea that ‘orders are orders’ and had to be carried out. But their plea, during the trial, was not accepted and they were hanged. Stressing on the moral and legal obligations of abiding by the law, the court says: ‘If a policemen is given an illegal order by an officer to do a fake encounter, it is his duty to refuse to carry out such an illegal order, Otherwise he will be charged for murder, and if found guilty , sentenced to death’. ‘The ‘encounter’ philosophy is a criminal philosophy, and all policemen must know this,' ‘ the judgment explains’.
       The judgment, in its far reaching implications, can be welcomed as a watershed in the History of India, for it serves as a deterrent to forces and brings a new hope to people. The hope that life of an individual holds pre-eminence and sanctity to any thing and everything else. And the security arm of the state cannot be allowed to indulge in the extra –judicial killings. The court has also for all times to come, smitten at the attitude of the governments who have so far described these murders as constitutionally valid{ that is why they plead AFSPA in defense}. There are, indeed some occasions when some noble cops in the lower ranks do not withstand the pressure from their superiors and succumb to do illegal. But the laudable ruling warns him not to obey any such order and “encourages” him to defy the criminal minded superiors. The judgment makes the cop to believe that illegal orders lose the force of legality and implementations. Still if the subordinate cop becomes accomplice in committing the gruesome act, the ‘gallows’ await him.
The  Apex Court  has rightly held that the ‘encounter philosophy is a criminal philosophy. Implying that all those who have adopted fake encounter as a policy to silence the political dissent or rivals are criminals in themselves. And the law cannot be lenient with them.
       It is expected that with this historic ruling coming from the Apex Court India will get rid off the menace of staged encounters. For the past so many years  a Breed of what is called ‘encounter specialists’ have taken birth in places like Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, Punjab, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Delhi. Kashmir has, during the past more than two decades of turmoil, become the “paradise” for such `brave hearts'. Thousand  of unarmed innocent people have been wiped out as if they were mosquitoes in state encounters. Many other were thrown in rivers or dumped in nameless graves. There are proven cases of extra-judicial murders by security personnel but the guilty criminals are yet to be punished. The Pathribal ‘encounter specialists’-who have displayed their “bravery” by picking five villagers from their homes and killed them brutally, declaring them as LeT militants-have been unmasked and identified. The involvement of Major Avtar Singh of Territorial Army in killing of senior advocate Jalil Andrabi stands established but he is roaming free abroad. These are just tips of the ice-berg. The truth is nearly every pack of ‘land’ in Kashmir is stained red with blood of innocent people. And those who were supposed to protect the life and honor of the people have behaved like predators.
       The judgment, in particular ,augurs well for Kashmir, where, as the magnitude and intensity of gross human  rights values on part of security forces betrays, the law is yet to measure the stiff necks of the murders. Delivering the judgment in such an unambiguously clear and plain-speaking manner, we think, the section 7 of AFSPA, that the defense authorities, time and on, invoke to subvert justice, loses its legality and sting.
       The historic judgment has thrown an open question to Indian Conscience: Which has to prevail, The supremacy of supreme court or The arrogance of the AFSPA?

Lastupdate on : Thu, 26 May 2011 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Thu, 26 May 2011 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 IST