The recent firing on a farmer in Tenkasi and the life sentences handed to nine police officers in the Sathankulam case have raised serious concerns regarding the protocols governing police firearm use. Can you please clarify: a) When is lethal force permissible? While "self-defence" is often cited, what are the specific legal thresholds that must be met before an officer can transition from verbal warnings to drawing a service revolver? b) What prevents departmental bias in initial probes? Given that the Sathankulam verdict took years to achieve, what independent legal mechanisms exist to ensure that internal police reports do not shield accidental firings?
- Jyoti Narassimman, Coimbatore
A right of private defence has to be specifically raised as a legal plea and proved before the court. Therefore, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recommended that in all cases of police encounters resulting in death, a criminal trial must be necessitated against the police personnel involved, and only if their defence is acceptable to the court, they can be let off. But all of these recommendations are only on paper. In the Hyderabad veterinary doctor rape and murder case, the four youths were shot dead, with the public celebrating the police for their encounter. Subsequent appointment of Justice Sirpurkar commission of inquiry found that none of those four individuals killed in police firing was even remotely connected to the crime. Now the guilty policemen were charged with murder. A new orientation must be given to the police, along with the adoption of a sophisticated and scientific investigation process to unravel offences.
A recent Supreme Court petition highlighted a case where a voter's name was removed without prior notice, a formal hearing, or any communication. This appears to be a violation of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution. Could you clarify the legal recourse available to a voter who discovers their name has been deleted without due process? Specifically, what are the immediate steps to be taken on polling day, and how can officials be held accountable for failing to serve the mandatory notice before such deletions are made?
- Vanitha Mannan, Kilpauk
When a complaint regarding genuine voters being left out came for a hearing, a judge from Bengaluru, adorning the bench, remarked that "don't view it as the final elections, you will have more chances to vote". This raises a question and doubt about where anyone can complain. In a similar case from West Bengal, the Supreme Court directed the formation of an appellate tribunal comprising retired High Court chief justices to hear petitions against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) deletion of voters. Unless and until a permanent mechanism is in place, we have to cheer ourselves with the consoling statement of the above-mentioned Supreme Court judge.