Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

Beating Of Lawyers By Police In Hapur Is Most Condemnable And Most Shocking

Posted in: Criminal Law
Thu, Aug 31, 23, 10:48, 1 Year ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5959
One is left totally ashamed, totally aghast and totally appalled which is beyond the capacity of my pen

One is left totally ashamed, totally aghast and totally appalled which is beyond the capacity of my pen to describe in words to see how ruthlessly the lawyers of Hapur were being beaten so horrifyingly by the police there right in court premises on August 29 which has definitely not covered them with glory and this is definitely most shocking and has to be condemned most strongly in the most strongest parliamentary language. I still could not believe for some time when I first learnt of it. The lawyers of Meerut and many districts in West UP and UP will be on strike on August 30 in protest against this most dastardly act on lawyers who constitute the biggest crown of our Indian Judicial System due to which late Nani A Palkhiwala refused to accept Judgeship of Supreme Court and was more than happy being a lawyer and there are many more such innumerable cases!

Speaking for myself, at least I am definitely most shell shocked to see how the lawyers of Hapur district were being beaten black and blue as if they were some rioters who were killing innocent people and am completely shaken to the hilt. By the way, when rioters indulge in rioting then we rarely see such boldness by the police! How can any sane person justify such ruthless lathicharge by police on lawyers right inside court premises in Hapur?

It must definitely be asked: Why should men in police uniform be given a blank cheque to beat anyone whenever they want, wherever they want and whomsoever they want without being ever held to task in any manner! Such policemen who dare to cross their limits must be made to face the music of the law and should be imposed the most stringent punishment and this is what we rarely seeing happen due to which we see the growing tendency of the police to always cross their limits and go berserk even on occasions where it was just not warranted! Why police tends to be oblivious of the glaring and irrefutable fact that the men and women in black coat are officers of the court and they deserve to be treated with utmost respect and definitely not with contempt as if they were some rioters out to indulge in anti-social acts?

It must definitely right be mentioned at the very outset that in Hapur, we had seen how the office bearers and members of the Bar Association did not do judicial work even on August 29 alleging that a fake case was registered against the woman advocate and her father and blocked Tehsil Chopla. The advocates were very rightly demanding the withdrawal of the case and it is the right of the lawyers to fight for demanding the withdrawal of fake cases against advocates! What was wrong in it?

What I find most troubling is: Why even the woman lawyers were not spared? Why even senior lawyers who were office bearers of Hapur Bar were just not spared and why were they mercilessly lathicharged to disperse them when they were protesting in the most dignified manner? Why so many advocates of Hapur, Ghaziabad, Modinagar and adjoining districts also had to face lathicharge due to which many got injured badly?

It must be also asked: How can such dastardly act be justified by anyone on any pretext whatsoever? Why when the lawyers after protesting peacefully and returning to the court premises in Hapur were most brutally lathicharged by the police? How can this be justified under any circumstances and on any pretext whatsoever? How long will such police personnel be given the unfettered right to indulge in lathicharge as per their own whims and fancies?

It cannot be lightly dismissed by anyone that none other than the Bar Council of UP has also taken a very serious note of it and Mr Anurag Pandey who is the Vice-Chairman of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has even written a letter to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh mentioning about this ghastly incident which has shocked the entire legal fraternity which is well substantiated by this letter in which it is also very strongly urged in the interest of justice to take the strictest action against the erring police personnel and transferring them to some other place. There has to be zero tolerance for such unwarranted and excessive assault by men in uniform on officers of the court that is advocates! It is high time and now the message must go loud and clear that, “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”.

It is really in the fitness of things that while rising to the occasion for the welfare of the litigants, the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Vittal vs The PSI of Bableshwar Police Station in Writ Petition No. 201668 of 2023 (GM-Police) and Neutral Citation No. – NC: 2023:KHC-K:5678 and also cited in 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 294 which was finally pronounced on July 20, 2023 has most commendably directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary circular/SOP to all (police) Station House Officers in respect of the most landmark directions issued by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari’s case pertaining to the registration of FIRs when a cognizable offence is made out in the complaint and instruct them to follow it scrupulously. It is high time and Centre must amend the law and make it a serious, cognizable and non-bailable offence for the police if they dare to refuse to register an FIR. The moot question is: Why should men in uniform be given a long rope always and not held accountable for not doing their duty by which they are bound to do?

Needless to say, why should a common person suffer endlessly because of the police? Why should such person in police uniform not be dismissed from service if they dare to refuse to lodge an FIR? If persons in uniform in police are most strictly held accountable then no person in police uniform will ever dare to refuse to lodge FIR or dare to demand bribe for lodging an FIR or misbehave even with common man what to talk about lawyers so brazenly, brashly and blindly? We have seen how just recently the Apex Court wondered aloud that in Manipur why police for 14 days had refused to lodge an FIR? There can be no gainsaying that this definitely requires prompt redressal and cannot be put on the backburner any longer!

The Supreme Court in the landmark case of Prakash Singh case which have still not been implemented and which now must be implemented as the Supreme Court itself has been repeatedly saying but even after 17 years, they lie unimplemented has advocated for massive police reforms. In the landmark case of Prakash Singh v Union of India (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 417, the seven directions given were:

  1. Constitute a State Security Commission on any of the models recommended by various committees and commissions.
  2. The Director General of Police shall be elected from amongst the three senior-most officers of the department having the good rank by the UPSC etc.
  3. Prescribe a minimum tenure of two years to the police officers on operational duties.
  4. The investigating police shall be separated from the law and order, police to ensure speedier investigation and better expertise.
  5. There shall be police establishment board in each state which shall decide all working conditions related to police officers.
  6. There shall be constituting of Police Complaints Authorities at the district level.
  7. The Central Government shall also set up a National Security Commission at the Union level who should also be given a minimum two years tenure.


Above all, it is incomprehensible that when Centre can change our penal laws then why can’t it make the necessary changes involving our police by which our police is trained to make them more people friendly and with more respect for human rights? What stops Centre from doing so? Why we see that the most commendable and landmark directions delivered by the Apex Court in the high profile Prakash Singh case as I touched upon briefly hereinabove are still lying unimplemented even after more than 17 years?

The billion dollar question that really arises here is: Why unlike Army we see that Centre never even cares to seriously deliberate on launching “Agniveer Yojana” for the police also so that they cannot rest and take their service for granted? If this cannot be done then to say the very least why do we see that the police personnel are not made more accountable when they indulge in using excessive use of force? Why are they allowed to get away just by being transferred to some other place when they indulge in gross violations of human rights not sparing even lawyers and doctors what to talk about the rest?

Why should they not be jailed at least for few years when they resort to unprovoked lathicharge as we have seen most recently in Hapur itself? It is high time and both the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh State Government must take most decisive steps in this direction to ensure that a permanent cure is done so that the police becomes more dedicated, determined and disciplined to serve in the manner in which they are expected to! This is more imperative than ushering in reforms in any other field and last but not the least Centre must ponder that why should police be left untouched, unattended and unredressed which is the most crucial part in ensuring the smooth law and order in all over the nation and we all know that all is not well with our police and it is not just the common person but even those in black coats who are “officers of the court” and yet are so scornfully treated by police?

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top