top of page
Search

Justice or Revenge: Fake Encounters and Mockery in the Judicial System

Updated: Feb 7, 2024

Abstract:

This research critically examines the dichotomy between justice and revenge, probing into the intricate dynamics and societal ramifications of these concepts. Justice, defined as an impartial, emotion-free corrective response for societal betterment and the rehabilitation of wrongdoers, faces challenges, particularly in jurisdictions with substantial legal backlogs. The proverbial maxim "Justice delayed is justice denied" highlights the temporal dimension, with studies projecting daunting timelines for case resolution. The research delves into the psychological aspects of revenge, its manifestation in various scenarios, and its potentially addictive nature. It has been found that while revenge may offer a seemingly straightforward resolution, authentic justice involves correction and rehabilitation, challenging wrongdoers to become law-abiding citizens. The human rights in the context of encounters in India, are commonly known as "extra-judicial killings." Tracing their history back to British rule, the study analyzes the constitutional provisions, notably Article 21, and scrutinizes encounters as potential violations of the right to life and personal liberty. The legal landscape, critiquing the use of the term "encounter" in the absence of explicit legal authority. It examines the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), emphasizing the absence of specific legal provisions for encounters, and highlights the potential misuse of the right of private defense outlined in IPC Section 96. Considering the judicial response to fake encounters, the study notes the weak aspects of the legal system and suggests the need for robust norms to deter and prosecute errant law enforcement officials. Acknowledging the risk of revenge consuming the judicial system, the research advocates for a superheroic legal framework that safeguards the vulnerable from exploitation.

 

Justice, as defined herein, represents an impartial and emotion-free response to rectify wrong actions for the greater societal good. It posits a goal of societal improvement and the rehabilitation of wrongdoers. The proverbial maxim, "Justice delayed is justice denied," underscores the temporal dimension of justice delivery, particularly in jurisdictions like India, where an overwhelming backlog of over one crore cases prevails. Studies suggest a disconcerting projection of 300 years or more for resolving these pending cases, raising pertinent questions about the viability of the justice system's effectiveness.

 

Delays in cases, individuals often turn to revenge as an expedient alternative. Drawing parallels with cinematic portrayals, where revenge is likened to the dual-bike-riding protagonist in "Phool Aur Kante," this research scrutinizes the emotional underpinnings of revenge. Fueled by anger and satisfaction, revenge provides a potent dopamine release for individuals enduring protracted waits for justice. The addictive nature of revenge is likened to the dependence observed in substance abusers, emphasizing its allure as a quick-fix solution. Unlike punishment, revenge can be carried out for mere slights, or by unauthorized agents, or by agents who display an inappropriate emotional response to what they perceive as an instance of wrongdoing

 

The psychological aspects of revenge explore its manifestation in scenarios of oppression, exploitation, injury, or insult. It contends that revenge, driven by a visceral emotion like anger, satisfies the individual seeking retribution. However, this satisfaction comes with potential pitfalls, analogous to the risks of handling a sharp knife. Cinematic depictions further illustrate the ambivalence surrounding revenge, where audiences may cheer for a character achieving personal vengeance but recoil if the true culprit is revealed to be someone else.


Image Source: http://surl.li/qfspj


The Indian Constitution, the supreme law of the land, lays down specific provisions and principles to ensure justice and protect the human rights of all individuals. One such provision is Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This article critically analyzes encounters in India and how they relate to justice and human rights as outlined in the Indian Constitution. Encounters, commonly referred to as "extra-judicial killings" or "fake encounters," are incidents where law enforcement agencies kill individuals without following due process of law. These encounters often occur under the pretext of self-defense or in an attempt to curb criminal activities.


Imagine the history of "extra-judicial killings" as a dark and twisted tree, with its roots tracing back to the British era. This tree bears the bitter fruits of injustice and abuse of power. The origins can be traced back to the infamous case of Alluri Sitarama Raju, a symbol of resistance against the British. In this case, the smell of “ fake encounter,” baked in the bakery of the British era, reached the nose of ordinary citizens in 1924. It was revenge, a cold-blooded revenge.


The National Human Rights Commission has set specific guidelines that must be followed in the case of encounters. These guidelines are as follows:


  1. The officer-in-charge in a police station must record it in an appropriate register.

  2. If the police party is involved in the encounter and the report is filed at the same police station, then it is desirable that the case be transferred to an independent investigation agency like CID (Crime Investigation Department).

  3. When a police party is alleged to have committed a criminal act, then it is required that an FIR to this effect must be registered under appropriate sections of the I.P.C.

  4. The close kin (relative) must be part of the Magisterial Inquiry, which will be held for all the cases of death linked with encounter.

  5. Appropriate and prompt action should be taken against the police officers found guilty in the Magisterial Inquiry.

These guidelines are till the magisterial inquiry of an encounter case. There are a few more guidelines related to the compensation to the deceased party.


Restriction on the right to life in India, a legal sanction for killing a beyond-doubt confirmed criminal, is allowed only by the "procedure established by law" as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that too in "the rarest of rare cases" as per a Supreme Court verdict in 1983. These cases show the weak side of our judicial system. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) lays down a procedure which had to be followed by police while dealing with an accused. The purpose of the code is to provide machinery for prosecution, trial, and punishment of offenders under substantive criminal law. i.e., the Indian Penal Code and other laws passed by the State occasionally.


In CRPC, there are no words such as “encounter” and “extra-judicial killings.” Where does this come from? In reality, our Indian legal system does not have any authority to take anyone’s life except the judiciary. But in Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 96, “Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.”


Police officials try to exploit this section to complete their personal missions. The mission of revenge. If they are found guilty of a “fake encounter,” they can be charged under Section Section-299 of the Indian Penal Code for culpable homicide. And, compensation must be granted to the kin(relative) of the deceased in case the police officers are prosecuted on the basis of a magisterial investigation.

 

In the end, the revenge will eat up the judicial system like a termination. Slowly and gradually, the Indian Judicial system has to make the norms for “fake encounters” strong. These new norms should be like a superhero, which protects the deprived from the hands of evil. People can hold on to a superhero's cape whenever they feel exploited. The Indian judicial system still stands tall and broad.

 

References:

 

*This article is authored by Hargun Dang, Student of University of Petroleum and Eneegy Studies, Dehradun and reviewed by Molika Bansal, Student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida.


Comments

bottom of page