Dishonouring the uniform: When politicians start respecting the police, the police will
DIPANKAR GUPTA
(from TOI)
When our politicians start respecting the police, the police will start
respecting us. It all begins with honouring the uniform, but what is our record
on this?
In mid-March this year, two legislators in Mumbai physically abused a police officer. But they have no cause to worry as Maharashtra's crack khadi class is protecting them. Cut to UP. Only days back, Shiv Kumar Beria, UP's textile minister, publicly announced: "We will strip any SHO of his uniform in 24 hours... if he doesn't listen to us."
Around that time, Javed Abidi, secretary of the Samajwadi Party, said he would whip those in uniform if they did not behave according to his lights. Not to be outdone, Om Prakash Singh, UP's tourism minister, warned policemen never to be seated in his presence. The list goes on. Will our leaders ever be able to kick this habit?
It is more than just bad manners to assault, or even threaten, a person in uniform. These acts come with a pricey jail tag and lifestyle that money can't buy out. Even a gesture of belligerence against an officer will attract Section 351 of the IPC. Assault is not only about causing bodily harm, but includes threats and verbal attacks as well.
The uniform carries some obligations too and one does not put it on just for the ride. Of course, the uniform gives access to the canteen, bar and rations, and that is not a minor privilege. It also makes those who wear it look better than what nature had intended. But behind the pageantry there are strict laws on how civilians, including politicians, must respect the uniform and, in turn, how those in uniform must respect citizens.
You can sport a handlebar moustache, carry a baton and bark orders but, if you are a civilian, never, never wear a uniform, not even on a Sunday. Anybody who is not in the defence or police force, but dons a service uniform is committing a grievous offence under Section 171 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). But that does not stop corporate and political bosses from deliberately outfitting their security staff to look like police or army personnel.
Fancy dressing on such occasions may ramp up their threat quotient, but these private guards are committing a certifiable crime. As the makers of the law are not good custodians of it, both the police and the army are trying to protect their respective uniforms from counterfeit reproductions. For example, to stop pretend uniforms from looking like the real thing, the Indian army now has the word 'Army' stamped boldly across its camouflage gear.
When our politicians dishonour those in uniform, they are cocky enough to do it in full public view. This makes it easier to book them under Section 186 of the IPC and put them away for three months, with or without a fine. In fact, one could really indulge on this matter and charge them under Sections 333 and 353 of the IPC and 41 (1) of the Criminal Penal Code (CrPC) as well. A nice, long cooling off period behind bars would help them unwind and catch up with their reading. They might want books with pictures but, mind improvement apart, an occasional legal text would be worth the bother.
There may be the perks of wearing a uniform, but what about the other side? A uniform carries duties and obligations as well. Section 24 of the Delhi Police Act unequivocally states that a police officer is on call round-the-clock, unless on medical leave or under suspension. With choices like these, reporting for duty is way better as an option.
There is more. If a police officer does not bring a crime to official notice because it happened outside the person's working hours or designated beat, it would be seen as intentional omission. Section 202 of the IPC is pretty unequivocal on this matter. In addition, Sections 149, 150 and 152 of the IPC also enjoin the police to prevent crimes and not to wait till there is blood on the floor.
Nor can police personnel, under Section 99 of IPC, physically attack anyone unless it can be shown that there was a clear threat of death or bodily harm. If there is no such apprehension, then police officers who slap or pulp unarmed people are punishable by law, and there is everything official about it! It is because the police commit such excesses, with or without political sanction, that they are unable to act when politicians humiliate them.
Where then should the correction begin? With the elected lawmakers or with the appointed law enforcers? Over the past decades, successive police reforms commissions have recommended that the police be freed from political interference. Later, the Supreme Court too stepped in and ratified these proposals. The judges also gave a time frame within which these had to be executed.
This was a sledge hammer, no doubt, but that was one tough nut that had to be cracked. Not surprisingly, nothing has happened so far. Which is why the police have to grovel before politicians and people must grovel before the police.
In mid-March this year, two legislators in Mumbai physically abused a police officer. But they have no cause to worry as Maharashtra's crack khadi class is protecting them. Cut to UP. Only days back, Shiv Kumar Beria, UP's textile minister, publicly announced: "We will strip any SHO of his uniform in 24 hours... if he doesn't listen to us."
Around that time, Javed Abidi, secretary of the Samajwadi Party, said he would whip those in uniform if they did not behave according to his lights. Not to be outdone, Om Prakash Singh, UP's tourism minister, warned policemen never to be seated in his presence. The list goes on. Will our leaders ever be able to kick this habit?
It is more than just bad manners to assault, or even threaten, a person in uniform. These acts come with a pricey jail tag and lifestyle that money can't buy out. Even a gesture of belligerence against an officer will attract Section 351 of the IPC. Assault is not only about causing bodily harm, but includes threats and verbal attacks as well.
The uniform carries some obligations too and one does not put it on just for the ride. Of course, the uniform gives access to the canteen, bar and rations, and that is not a minor privilege. It also makes those who wear it look better than what nature had intended. But behind the pageantry there are strict laws on how civilians, including politicians, must respect the uniform and, in turn, how those in uniform must respect citizens.
You can sport a handlebar moustache, carry a baton and bark orders but, if you are a civilian, never, never wear a uniform, not even on a Sunday. Anybody who is not in the defence or police force, but dons a service uniform is committing a grievous offence under Section 171 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). But that does not stop corporate and political bosses from deliberately outfitting their security staff to look like police or army personnel.
Fancy dressing on such occasions may ramp up their threat quotient, but these private guards are committing a certifiable crime. As the makers of the law are not good custodians of it, both the police and the army are trying to protect their respective uniforms from counterfeit reproductions. For example, to stop pretend uniforms from looking like the real thing, the Indian army now has the word 'Army' stamped boldly across its camouflage gear.
When our politicians dishonour those in uniform, they are cocky enough to do it in full public view. This makes it easier to book them under Section 186 of the IPC and put them away for three months, with or without a fine. In fact, one could really indulge on this matter and charge them under Sections 333 and 353 of the IPC and 41 (1) of the Criminal Penal Code (CrPC) as well. A nice, long cooling off period behind bars would help them unwind and catch up with their reading. They might want books with pictures but, mind improvement apart, an occasional legal text would be worth the bother.
There may be the perks of wearing a uniform, but what about the other side? A uniform carries duties and obligations as well. Section 24 of the Delhi Police Act unequivocally states that a police officer is on call round-the-clock, unless on medical leave or under suspension. With choices like these, reporting for duty is way better as an option.
There is more. If a police officer does not bring a crime to official notice because it happened outside the person's working hours or designated beat, it would be seen as intentional omission. Section 202 of the IPC is pretty unequivocal on this matter. In addition, Sections 149, 150 and 152 of the IPC also enjoin the police to prevent crimes and not to wait till there is blood on the floor.
Nor can police personnel, under Section 99 of IPC, physically attack anyone unless it can be shown that there was a clear threat of death or bodily harm. If there is no such apprehension, then police officers who slap or pulp unarmed people are punishable by law, and there is everything official about it! It is because the police commit such excesses, with or without political sanction, that they are unable to act when politicians humiliate them.
Where then should the correction begin? With the elected lawmakers or with the appointed law enforcers? Over the past decades, successive police reforms commissions have recommended that the police be freed from political interference. Later, the Supreme Court too stepped in and ratified these proposals. The judges also gave a time frame within which these had to be executed.
This was a sledge hammer, no doubt, but that was one tough nut that had to be cracked. Not surprisingly, nothing has happened so far. Which is why the police have to grovel before politicians and people must grovel before the police.
No comments:
Post a Comment