Extra-judicial killings may be seen as acts rendering instant justice to appease public outrage and the political opposition following a sensational crime. But these deaths in custody, which the police often claim are acts committed in self-defence, raise serious questions about ‘punishments’ that are not established by the rule of law and violations of the constitutional right to life, guaranteed under Article 21.
On July 5, armed men posing as food delivery agents hacked the Tamil Nadu president of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), K. Armstrong, to death. Armstrong, 52, was a leader representing the interests of the Scheduled Castes.
Soon after the incident, 11 suspects, eight of whom had surrendered, were arrested by the police. A previous enmity was attributed as the motive for the murder. However, suspecting a larger conspiracy in the crime, supporters of the leader and some political parties demanded investigation by an independent agency.
After the murder drew sharp criticism from civil society on the efficacy of the intelligence machinery and maintenance of law and order, the State government transferred Chennai Police Commissioner Sandeep Rai Rathore and replaced him with Additional Director-General of Police A. Arun.
Early on Sunday, the city woke up to the news that Thiruvengadam, one of the accused taken into custody by the police for interrogation, was shot dead in an ‘encounter’. The police stated that Thiruvengadam was being taken to his house so that they could recover the weapons used in the murder. When the escort personnel stopped the vehicle, he allegedly escaped.
The police conducted a search and found Thiruvengadam hiding in the locality. When they tried to arrest him, he opened fire and the police retaliated in self-defence, the police said. It is not clear how Thiruvengadam escaped from a team of armed police personnel and managed to get a gun.
Hours after the incident, CCTV footage of Thiruvengadam and his associates brutally hacking Armstrong to death were shown in various television channels. The footage was released for the first time after the murder.
Deaths in custody are not uncommon in Tamil Nadu. There have been instances of prisoners in remand being gunned down for allegedly attacking the police and trying to escape. In April 2003, two Tamil nationalist ideologues, Rajaram and Saravanan, were shot dead in an ‘encounter’ by the police. When Rajaram was being escorted from a court to prison in a convoy of vehicles, a private vehicle came to rescue him. After an armed suspect, later identified as Saravanan, opened fire, the escort police retaliated in “self-defence”, killing both of them. The police dismissed allegations that the shootout was staged and Saravanan was already in police custody and maintained that the ‘encounter’ was genuine.
In November 2010, a driver, Mohanraj, who was accused of kidnapping and murdering two young siblings in Coimbatore, was taken into police custody for questioning. When he was escorted to the crime scene for reconstructing the sequence of events, Mohanraj allegedly snatched a revolver and opened fire, injuring two police personnel. In “retaliation”, the police shot him dead. The murder of the two children triggered public anger. After Mohanraj was killed, posters were put up welcoming the police action.
In recent months, there have been at least a dozen ‘encounter killings’ across the State. Though magisterial inquiries and criminal investigations follow such incidents, the police have not been held guilty.
Rights activists say every extra-judicial killing should be thoroughly investigated in compliance with the guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission as well as the Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra (2014). The Court in that case had observed that Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteed the right to live with dignity. “Any violation of human rights is viewed seriously by this Court as the right to life is the most precious right guaranteed by Article 21... The guarantee... is available to every person and even the State has no authority to violate that right,” it said.
The State should hand over investigation to an independent agency and cooperate in a fair and transparent probe. Else, the police force will be left with the dubious distinction of being trigger-happy.
