Representation Image
The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has expressed “outrage and strongly condemned the cold-blooded shooting down by a 3-member gang of politician and former minister, Atiq Ahmed and his brother, Ashraf Ahmed, at about 1030 pm on April 15, 2023 in Prayagraj (Allahabad) Government Hospital, in public and in the full glare of the media.”
In a statement issued by its general secretary, V Suresh, the civil liberties organisation has also stated that, “What is most deplorable is that Atiq and Ashraf, were surrounded by an armed team of policemen who allowed a set of media persons to interview them, when the three killers came to the spot in motorcycles, whipped out sophisticated guns and shot the brothers in cold blood at point blank range, with the armed police remaining as mute spectators doing nothing to prevent the slaughter.
Since the publicised weekend killings of Atiq and Ashraf Ahmed, several individuals and groups have raised serious questions on the murders.
What raises serious questions about the complicity of the police is the fact that the two brothers, who have been in police custody, were brought by the UP police late in the evening at about 1030 pm on April 15, 2023, to the Prayagraj Government Hospital for a purported medical check-up. Though handcuffed together, and surrounded by armed policemen, the two were permitted by the police to have a media meet in the open at about 1030 pm which was captured live on visual media, when the three-member killer gang shot them dead.
The killing, the statement says, is not just a security lapse on the part of the police, who failed to check the identity of the killers posing as media persons; a much more disturbing issue is how the killer gang knew that a media meeting would be held in the open, outside the hospital.
PUCL has also raised the following “ Questions to be answered by UP Police”
1. Why did the UP Police not seek ‘Police Custody’ of the killers of Atiq and Ashraf Ahmed when produced for remand before Duty Magistrate on 16.04.2023 itself, and agree to Judicial Custody?
2. If the killer gang was unknown to the police, didn’t the police think it important to interrogate them to find out how the killer gang knew about the police allowing the Ahmed brothers to meet the press at an unearthly hour of 1030 pm on 15.04.2023?
3. Didn’t the UP police think it was important to find out who all were behind the killer-gang by interrogating the 3 youngsters who shot Atiq and Ashraf?
The answer to these questions, states PUCL, will tell us whether it was a question of mere negligence by the UP police or a deeper conspiracy by the UP police and the UP administration, in the murders themselves?
Further, the statement says that the “suspicion” as to whether the twin killings were planned affairs gets strengthened when viewed against the background of the encounter killing by the police on April 13, 2023 at Jhansi, of Asad Ahmed (son of Atiq Ahmed) and Ghulam, both of whom were also accused of the murder of Raju Pal. In effect, in a space of 2 days, four key accused persons in the Raju Pal murder case, had been killed in alleged encounters, by the UP police.
Besides, Atiq Ahmed apprehended being killed in UP and his counsel had told the Supreme Court that if he was transferred from Gujarat to UP, it would literally be a death warrant. The Supreme Court while turning down the plea for protection had orally observed that since he was already in police custody, the state machinery would take care of him. Despite this grave apprehension expressed by Atiq Ahmed of being killed by the police in a staged encounter if he was brought to UP from Gujarat, the UP Government does not seem to have taken adequate steps to ensure this most basic guarantee, namely the right to life. Meanwhile, Tragically, the very state machinery that was to protect him in its custody, has failed miserably.
Another factor that raises concern is that just yesterday, April 18, reports of a crude bomb being thrown outside the house of Atiq Ahmed’s lawyer, Mr. Dayashankar Mishra, in Prayagraj suggesting that a climate of impunity to criminals in general looms large. While thankfully no one was injured, the incident has sent shock waves amongst the family members of Mr. Dayashankar Mishra and Vijay Mishra, Advocates representing the murdered Atiq Ahmed.
Finally, states PUCL ever since the present Adityanath government was sworn in on 19.03.2017, he unleashed a controversial plan to eliminate alleged criminals and gangsters with his “Thok Diye Jayenge” or “They will be knocked out” policy. The CM also unleashed `Operation langda’ by which alleged criminals were shot in their legs incapacitating them for life.
According to Prashanth Kumar, Special Director General of Police (Law and Order), UP Police, between March, 2017 and April, 2023, there have been 10,900 police encounters in which over 5046 alleged accused persons have been injured and 185 persons have been shot dead.
It should be noted that the UP Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath who has sworn an oath to ‘bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India’ had previously stated that “Mafia ko mitti mein mila doonga”. This seems to have encouraged his ministers (who, it should be pointed out, are also sworn to uphold the constitution) to give statements that the murders were “karma” or that they were “divine justice”. What is very ominous is the news that some groups with links to the ruling party celebrated the encounters by bursting crackers.
It is the responsibility of the UP government led by the Chief Minister to ensure that vigilante murders do not occur and that the police do not kill people extra judicially. That is the essence of rule of law. It is in this most basic aspect of the responsibility of the Uttar Pradesh government, that it has most abjectly failed. It is the right of the accused to prove their innocence in a court of law, through due process, which has been blatantly denied and summary (in)justice is meted out without fair trial. This is in blatant violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and cannot be allowed or condoned.
This position of the UP government led by Yogi Adityanath which asserts that criminals are not entitled to the rule of law is antithetical to the values of the Constitution. To those in the public who support this amoral position that ‘gangsters’ should not be entitled to the benefits of rule of law, one should note that once an exception is made in the grand edifice of rule of law, there will be others who, the state will argue, don’t deserve the protection of `rule of law’. If this trend is not checked the state will feel emboldened to opt for vigilante justice, including extra judicial executions, against all those questioning its actions and policies. The ground for this has been prepared through the relentless delegitimisation of all dissent, dubbing those who are exercising the right to free speech as ‘anti-nationals’.
This amoral and cynical approach has been roundly castigated by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. In `PUCL vs State of Maharashtra (2014)’, a case filed by the PUCL regarding the issue of genuineness or otherwise of nearly 99 encounters between the Mumbai police and the alleged criminals resulting in death of about 135 persons between 1995 and 1997’, the Supreme Court observed that,
“Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees “right to live with human dignity”. Any violation of human rights is viewed seriously by this Court as right to life is the most precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The guarantee by Article 21 is available to every person and even the State has no authority to violate that right”.
The Supreme Court appointed Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice V Sirpurkar to inquire into the killing of four men accused of rape by the Telangana police when the accused were in the custody of the Telangana Police, (known as the Disha rape and murder case which occurred in Hyderabad on November, 27, 2019) the Commission came to the conclusion that the killings were murder and not justified as self-defence. The Commission also noted that:
“Just as Mob Lynching is unacceptable, so is any idea of instant justice. At any point of time Rule of Law must prevail. Punishment for crime has to be only by the procedure established by law”.
The PUCL has therefore demanded that:
1. The SC should consider passing orders in the UP encounters PIL already pending before it, entrusting investigation into the quadruple encounter – murders of Atiq Ahmed, Ashraf, Asad Ahmed and Ghulam, on 13th and 15th April, 2023 to an independent investigating agency, preferably a SIT, consisting of Police officials from outside UP, under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court.
2. The case should be investigated as a custodial killing in accordance with the Supreme Court guidelines in `PUCL vs State of Maharashtra’ (2014 (10) SCC 635). The UP administration has shown no respect for the rule of law and therefore a Supreme Court monitored probe will build faith and confidence among the larger public as compared to a probe initiated under the aegis of the UP government.
3. A FIR be registered into the encounter killings immediately, naming the police persons responsible for the encounters, and transferred to the `Special Investigation Team’ comprising officials from outside UP, for free, fair and independent investigation.
4. The police officials involved in the encounters should be immediately transferred out of their districts to enable the SIT to conduct an unbiased investigation and to ensure that evidence is not tampered with.
5. Magisterial inquiry in accordance with law should be conducted. All the evidence, including forensic evidence by way of ammunition and weapons used, postmortem findings, chemical examination reports, electronic evidence and so on should be handed over to the jurisdiction Magistrate’s court to prevent tampering with evidence.
6. Compensation should be given to the surviving members of the family as a partial recognition of the irreparable loss caused to them. Police officials responsible and complicit in the offence should be punished in accordance with law.
Related:
Extra-judicial killings in UP: A badge of honour or a matter of shame?