Those images have lingered. Of one model/ starlet Lucky Farmhouse, the ‘companion’ of an alleged Israeli drug dealer says that her partner as in company of a home minister’s son who received ‘consignments’ from him, of seven police arrested for their nexus with drug dealers, of one inspector of Mapusa forcing a woman to perform oral sex to him and head constable Santosh Gawas and constable Pritesh Naik, doing the same with another woman in a police van. The reason for recounting such horrific (to most sane and normal beings) images is important in the context of two ongoing developments. Firstly, there is a police bill which will ultimately become an act after passing through a select committee, perhaps even without the mandatory public consultation. Secondly, there has been a deliberate overreach by the government in the functioning of the court mandated state level Police Complaints Authority, the only forum, for victims of police atrocities against a system which protects its own.
In a recent memorandum issued on July 23, 2014 the government clearly sought to clip the authority of the state Police Complaints Authority. States were directed to constitute police complaints authorities by the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of being a go to window for those wanting justice from the injustices and criminal acts of policemen. The memorandum raised the issue of the SPCA taking ‘suo moto” cognisance of cases, on the ground that the Prakash Singh vs Union of India Judgment, on the basis of which the SPCA was born, did not explicitly allow suo moto cognizance to be taken. This is nothing but an attempt to rein in an authority which has been taking serious note of complaints against police officers and recommending action, such as in the Cipriano Fernandes custodial death case. Whenever a state goes by the letter a judgment to curtail its spirit, it’s obvious that the intention to deliver justice isn’t malafide.
In the present case, the Supreme Court did not prohibit the SPCA’s to take suo moto cognizance. Moreover all judicial or even police authorities have the responsibility to take cognizance, either through complaints or “suo moto” in the cause of justice. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative who Herald engaged with for inputs for this article, has prepared a note in response to the Goa government’s July 23 memorandum of clarifications on the functioning of the SPCA. CHRI was a member on the police act drafting committee (PADC), better known as the Soli Sorabjee Committee, which drafted the Draft Model Police Bill, 2006 to replace the existing Police Act of 1861. Following the judgment in the Prakash Singh case, CHRI has been monitoring compliance on the ground by state governments. Reacting to the memo sating “The SPCA shall not take suo moto cognizance, unless a formal complaint is registered with the authority, the CHRI notes. “For a body with a mandate like a Police Complaints Authority, the power to take suo moto cognizance is crucial. Inherent in the idea is that criminality within the police does not go unaddressed under any circumstances. Seeing the SPCA take suo moto cognizance builds public trust and confidence in the regime of police accountability, especially as it may not be possible for every individual or family to complain even after being a victim of police misconduct”
The second attempt at wing clipping, was through this point in the memorandum.
The SPCA shall recommend action against the police officer, if found guilty, to the state government and the state government shall implement the recommendation.
This may be a contravention of the Supreme Court judgment in the Prakash Singh case which stated “The recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at the district and state levels, for any action, departmental or criminal, against a delinquent police officer shall be binding on the concerned authority”.
The binding nature is perhaps sought to be diluted when the memorandum states, states that the “SPCA shall recommend action against the police Officer, if found guilty, to the state government
However since it also states “and the state government shall implement the recommendation” it is hoped that the government will ensure that all recommendations are acted upon. But since it has made this a point of ‘clarification”, it needs to further clarify this.
As the CHRI note states The “words of the 2014 government order create confusion. It can only be concluded that by removing the word “binding”, the government’s “clarification” waters down the binding nature of the SPCA’s recommendations which was already established in the 2007 order”
Finally the government memorandum stated, “No complaint shall be enquired into, in which departmental/magisterial/judicial enquiry have already started or initiated in the matter”.
This is the most alarming clarification as this closes the opportunity for anyone to come to the SPCA if any other authority is looking into a specific complaint against any police officer. This goes against the very nature of the SPCA. A live example of what will happen if this is followed is this. In the recent cases in Camurlim where a woman was tortured and chilly powder stuffed into her private parts, the local PSI sought to dilute the complaint and did not react on time to start investigations. He was subsequently suspended and an inquiry ordered. Now if the victim or a social organisation is not happy with the pace of the inquiry and wants to go SPCA, he can’t.
The government must understand that the police system can act either as a bridge or a barrier with people. By protecting policemen who indulge in criminality, public trust takes a permanent beating. And clipping the wings of an independent police complaints authority doesn’t help. Unfortunately, this is exactly what this government is seeking to do.
