The court must rule

Context: The killing of Vikas Dubey and the chain of events leading up to it throw a spotlight on the politicization of the institutions of governance in general and police reform in particular.  

Extrajudicial killings: 

• Have no place in a liberal democracy. 

• Expression of frustration by police against their comrades being killed, and evident their lack of trust in the judiciary. 

• Police, often at the behest of their masters, will continue to kill the accused and continue to getaway. 

Judicial precedence on extrajudicial killings:  

• A five-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (2009): made it mandatory for the police to register an FIR against police officers after every “encounter” death and next steps to be decided by a judicial magistrate.

• The Supreme Court framed guidelines to be followed in “encounter” cases in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra, (2014).

• The National Human Rights Commission laid out guidelines of its own in encounter cases in 1997.

Suggestion:  

• Short term: The SC already has a template in cases of corruption (Vineet Narain vs Union of India in 1998), the court has asserted its power to monitor investigations, pass interim orders, appoint amicus curiae, and continually hold investigative agencies accountable. 

• This should be emulated in the case of the extra-judicial killing and police excess. 

• Long term: Police reform: 

• The National Police Commission had recommended a process of selecting top officers to man the cutting-edge leadership jobs in the force. 
• The Supreme Court had given its suggestions in Prakash Singh case 2007.

Conclusion: The extrajudicial killing gave rise to enterprising policemen, who have become lawbreakers instead of law keepers.