Editorial: Policing politicians and personnel

Political interference in police investigation and administration is an open secret; the controversy surrounding Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar intimidating an IPS officer on duty is just another instance that strengthens people’s suspicions in this regard. What has long been suspected as behind-the-scenes or closed-doors happenings sometimes comes out in the open with damning video evidence, which gets further amplified in the age of social media. Now the Nationalist Congress Party is trying in vain to wriggle out of the pickle.

The incident happened when a police team led by sub-divisional police officer Anjana Krishna went to a village in Solapur to investigate complaints of illegal sand mining. At the behest of local NCP workers, the Deputy Chief Minister speaks to the police officer on the phone. The tone, tenor, and language are clearly inappropriate.

The most obvious question on the minds of people was why the Deputy CM wasn’t following the protocol, the hierarchy, and chain of command. Secondly, it is not known if the situation on the ground really warranted such a prompt and seemingly hasty response from the higher echelons of power. Instead of exerting pressure on police officials, the leader could have advised his party workers to seek legal redress through proper channels.

Now the deputy CM went on a damage control mode. In a social media post he averred that he had the “highest respect for our police force and its officers, including the women officers” and that he valued the “rule of law above all”. Moreover, he said he remained “firmly committed to transparent governance and to ensuring that every illegal activity, including sand mining, is dealt with strictly as per the law”.

The explanation highlights the key points of transgression, namely, disrespectful conduct towards a woman police officer, the undermining of the rule of law, and being seen supporting those allegedly involved in illegal activity.

In this context, it must be mentioned that police officers, too, should resist the temptation of taking the law into their hands or going beyond their brief or scope of powers and duty. Real life and cinema have been mutually reinforcing, legitimising, and glorifying the obviously illegal vigilante policing by the so-called super cops and encounter specialists, who train their guns at people belonging to the socio-economically disadvantaged persons. As a result, many perceive the police not as a guardian of law and protector of people but more as a tool of oppression controlled by the rich and powerful.

Much has been said about the need to limit the power of political executive on law enforcement. Political leaders misuse their power over appointments, postings, transfers, and other service conditions to exert undue influence on police officers. These powers can be circumscribed through mechanisms such as state security commissions. The implementation of the Supreme Court’s directives on police reforms has been half-hearted at best. Regarding political influence, the control over and the consequent misuse of CBI, ED, and NCB, the central investigating agencies with draconian powers, the less said the better.

The police system needs to be insulated from undue and wrongful political interference. At the same time, the police need to be subject to a robust, constitutional, and autonomous system of checks and balances to curb corruption and prevent excesses, custodial violence, and abuse of power.