Unlawful use of violence: An anathema to societal progress

Dr Konbrailatpam Ratnabali *

Churachandpur Town protest against passing of three Bills related to ILP on September 1 2015 :: Pix - Deepak Oinam

Manipur experiences frequent incidents of violence by public whether to show disagreement or disapproval of government’s action or inaction or as an act of reprisal against an individual/family for an act not acceptable to the societal psyche, irrespective of the fact whether the act constitutes a penal offence or otherwise. Use of excessive force by State agencies against the common people is also not an unusual phenomena in the State.

The use of violence such as destroying public property or hurting human as means of public expression against the government cannot get validation on the basis of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression because it is not an absolute right but is limited by reasonable restrictions such as public order, decency and morality. In fact, plan for any such act by five or more persons constitute an unlawful assembly and such assembly can be dispersed or may even be prohibited as per law.

Participants of such public/mob violence that leads even to loss of human lives are generally left unpunished. That gradual inclination of the society towards violence and anarchy clubbed with inability of State apparatus to curb it is not a positive development. Maintenance of public order is an important task of any State and if this is negotiated in such instances of public violence, it speaks volumes about the efficiency of the State machinery as well as the social psyche.

Resorting to violence by public as a means of reprisal to any individual, regardless of the gravity of crime committed by that person, is not in consonance with norms of a society governed by rule of law. In a civil society where penal rules have been laid down to punish the wrongdoer, impartial machinery for determining the culpability of an accused has been established, and a penal system to punish the guilty is in place, the public is not warranted to take law into its hands to reprimand any accused person.

What then is the consequence of taking law into their hands by the public? It no doubt undermines the existing law and order as well as justice delivery system, but much more than that the impact of such uncontrolled public use of violence leads to rise in unlawful use of force and incidental societal chaos thus compromising peace and tranquility of public at large.

Use of force in the present legal system is permissible only in the case of self-defence and that too is not an unlimited right. The force used to defend oneself should be reasonably proportionate to the attacking force, though not strictly in mathematical terms. In all other cases, use of force by an individual or groups will be illegal or unlawful for which punishment can be meted out.

If public display of outrages results into damage to public property, it is punishable under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Voluntarily causing injury, grievous hurt / death to a person is punishable under Indian Penal Code and cannot be excused on the ground that it happened in the spur of the moment.

Saying so, we also cannot lose sight of what happened to Akku Yadav in 2004 in Nagpur wherein 200 women had lynched him in the district court premises. As reported in The Guardian, Akku Yadav had been terrorizing 300 families in Kasturba Nagar, Nagpur and used rape of women as a means to demoralize and humiliate the community. For more than a decade he had abused law and justice system and the women lost their tolerance and lynched him to death when police laughed and abused them when they reported rape committed by him.

Such break down of law and justice machinery will make victims lose all faith and hope in justice delivery system and may be compelled to take law into their hands to achieve justice and reprisal to save whatever little honour and dignity is left in them.

Further, it also requires to be mentioned that State agencies such as police are not permitted to use excessive force against the public who are peacefully protesting or demonstrating against the State apparatus. In fact, unwarranted police firing against the demonstrators leading to loss of lives cannot be justified because of the fact that there is settled law that the State or its functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life which includes right to live with human dignity except in accordance with law.

In Beenu Rawat & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (WPC No. 446 of 2013), the Supreme Court of India has observed that ‘the maximum threat to such fundamental right (right to live with human dignity) is perceptible when any kind of protest or agitation is directed against the police force for reasons which are self-evident.

Police is licensed to carry arms for protecting the people. This itself creates a situation where the power of arms may be misused under the mistaken belief in the absolutism of the police power or on account of lack of sensitivity to the democratic rights of the people to register peaceful protest, against wrongs, especially that of public functionaries’.

Indeed a progressive society must refrain itself from going beyond the permissible limit set by law so as to maintain not only peace and order in the State but instill a sense of rule of law. Violence by protestors or excessive use of force by agencies such as police and army in unjustified manner and taking law in their hand by the commons, not only create unrest in the society but also works as an obstacle in the development of the community as well as state.

It is also pertinent to mention that establishing an efficient, vibrant and sensitive law and justice system based on rule of law in real terms is also need of the hour so as to deter victims of crime from taking self avenge and infuse hope and sense of justice to the system