B.RAMAN
In all democracies, the public has a right to
demonstrate in public in a peaceful manner, but it does not have the right to
demonstrate where it will, when it will and how it will. The police can impose
reasonable restrictions on the right to demonstrate for maintaining law and
order.
2.In Washington, there are restrictions on
demonstrations in the vicinity of the White House, the Vice-President’s house,
the Pentagon and the State Department. Similarly, in London, there are
restrictions on demonstrations near 10, Downing Street and the Buckingham
Palace.
3. The Delhi Police was justified in imposing
restrictions on demonstrations outside the Rashtrapathi Bhawan, the Prime
Minister’s residence, the Parliament and the North and South Blocks. Generally,
such restrictions are imposed under Section 144 of the CrPC which bans any
gathering of more than five persons.
4. Restrictions under Section 144 can be imposed as
an anticipatory cum preventive action before trouble breaks out or in order to
control a situation after trouble has broken out. The failure of the Delhi
Police to impose restrictions under Section 144 near these places before the
protesters gathered there enabled the protesters to gather there without
violating any law and engage in a confrontation with the police that took an
ugly turn. The Police imposed Section 144 only after trouble had broken out and
were not able to enforce it effectively.
5. The police had the right and the responsibility
to prevent the protesters from forcing their way into the residences and offices
located in the high security areas. Not having imposed restrictions under
Section 144, the police found themselves with no other option but to use force
to prevent the protesters, who had gathered in these areas, from breaking into
them.
6. Whatever be the gravity and legitimacy of the
grievances of the protesters, they could not have been allowed by the police to
go where they want and do what they want. The scenes of clashes between the
police and the protesters that one saw indicated a continuing lack of
sophistication in dealing with crowds.
7. We still follow, with some modifications, the riot drill as laid
down by the British for dispersing unruly crowds. This riot drill laid down the
following steps for dealing with a crowd--- tear-smoke, cane charge, lathi
charge, and firing. Use of water was added as the first stage in emulation of
the Western countries. There is no lathi charge in Western countries. We
continue to use lathis, which can cause severe injuries.
8. Under the riot drill regulations, a police
force----whether from the district or armed police--- cannot use force on its
own. It can do so only on the orders of a senior magistrate. The do’s and don’ts
relating to the use of force lay down, inter alia, as follows:
(a). Use of force should be stopped when the crowd
starts running away.
(b). An individual who is running away should not
be chased and beaten up.
(c) A person who falls on the ground should not be
beaten up.
9.The TV visuals that one saw created an impression
that the police was not following any of these dos and don’ts. They were
chasing and beating up a fleeing crowd and fleeing individuals and were beating
up with lathis even a girl who had fallen on the ground and was helpless. They
seemed to be trying to teach a lesson to the protesters .
10. This indicated an ill-trained force not subject
to any self-control and self-discipline in dealing with unruly crowds. What one
saw was clashes between unruly protesters and equally unruly policemen.
11. There is a need for an urgent review of our
riot drill methods and the training of our police force in crowd control to
introduce greater sophistication in crowd control. It is time for us to discard
the use of lathis, which can cause severe physical injury. Many Western
countries have discarded them.
12. It is equally important that senior police
officers and magistrates remain present in the scenes of anticipated trouble to
exercise leadership and control over the police force.
13. It is also important for our youth to realize that
whatever be their anger and outrage, they cannot take the law into their own
hands. The police have a duty to perform in maintaining law and order and
should be allowed to do so. If everybody---whether protesters or the police----
start behaving and acting as they will, there will be anarchy. ( 24-12-12)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd),
Cabinet Secretariat, Govt of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director,
Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For
China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com .Twitter: @SORBONNE75)
