Society | Tough questions the Hyderabad encounter poses

On December 6, India woke up to the news that the accused in the Hyderabad rape-and-murder case were killed in an early-morning ‘encounter’ with the police.

The story goes that the accused, who were in police custody, were being taken to the crime site to reconstruct the scene, where they attempted to break free and attacked the cops. The cops, of course, fired back in self-defence leading to the demise of all the four rape accused.

The encounter seems to have led to a collective outburst of joy for a large part of the society — social and mainstream news media have trended the hashtag ‘#JusticeForDisha’ even as the cops have been garlanded by the public.

Implicit in such jubilation is the fact that we as a society are condoning, even encouraging extra-judicial killings, in which cops play judge, jury and executioner.

For it is hardly anyone’s case that the encounters were genuine. For instance, it is odd that the accused needed to be taken to the crime scene at 3.30 am. Or that the cops had to necessarily shoot to kill the accused. Irrespective of whether or not the encounter was genuine, most people are rejoicing the fact that, to quote yoga guru Baba Ramdev, “the culprits deserved this” and that such criminals “should be brought to justice on the spot”.

There is that small, yet important matter that the so-called criminals were yet to be proven guilty by the justice system, as required by the Constitution.

Those upholding the above point seem to be a minority for whom such speedy delivery of ‘justice’ is extra-constitutional.

There is a larger point to this. The legality of such encounters, or lack thereof, shouldn’t necessarily be seen as a binary issue.

For instance, believers in such methods of ‘instant justice’ believe the legal system is too slow to deliver justice in a fair and timely manner. That charge is not without basis.

One does not need to go into numbers to establish that cases in the judicial system take a long time to get seen through. It is the inability of the justice system to cope with the demands put on it that has led to the lack of faith in it.

Now, what has been done to fix the system? The answer is not much.

For instance, a large number of positions in the judiciary continue to remain vacant. It is difficult to recall major reforms undertaken by the government that would have helped in alleviating the pressure on courts. The creation of fast-track courts in the wake of a high-profile incident doesn’t count.

The government has repealed more redundant laws than any of its predecessors — and for that it deserves credit — but that measure in itself does not strictly count as judicial reforms.

The one reform that the central government did attempt was its botched attempt to introduce the judicial appointments Bill, which was aimed at reforming the collegium system of the Supreme Court, which has its flaws. Needless to stay, instead of trying a bottom-up approach, the government’s top-down measure failed and the apex court nixed the Bill before it could see the light of the day.

What’s worse is that unlike economic reforms, which often hurt significant swathes of the population, judicial or police reforms don’t hurt anyone.

Yet, there is little clamour for such action. Perhaps governments also don’t prioritise them as they may not lead to immediate political gains.

The bottom line is that those rejoicing or opposing the Hyderabad encounter should expend their energies on seeking more answers on how the legal system should be fixed.