General News

Sumedh Saini case shows accountability is a selective quotient and applied with discrimination in India: Asian Human Rights Commission

May 21, 2014 | By Parmjeet Singh

New Delhi, India (May 21, 2014): The Asian Human Rights Commission recently issued a statement regarding scheduled re-appointment of Sumedh Saini as Director General of Punjab Police. Sumedh Saini is considered responsible for committing mass level human rights abuses.

In it’s statement, the AHRC said that “Saini’s case indicates the policing policy of the Indian state. It also strongly suggests that in India, accountability is a selective quotient, applied with discrimination; it depends on from whom the accountability of action and inaction is sought”.

Complete text of AHRC’s statement dated May 19,2 014 reads as follows:

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed an application in a CBI Special Court seeking approval for criminal charges to be framed against the Director General of Police, Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini, of the Punjab state police. The accusation against Saini relates to his conduct of defence in a criminal case in which Saini was accused of having masterminded the murder of three persons in Punjab in 1994.

The CBI alleges that Sumedh Saini, during the trial of the murder case, obtained certified copies of certain documents, which he later tampered with and produced in court. The charges, if found to be true, are of serious nature; they mandate seven years’ imprisonment and a fine.

Saini is a notorious trigger-happy cop from Punjab. The accolades showered on Saini by the government as well as the media, for ‘combating terrorists’ in Punjab during the 1980s through 1999 are misplaced. Saini, in fact, supervised the ‘elimination’ of suspects, via officers under his command. In law, all such ‘encounters’ – as they are oft referred to in South Asia – are extrajudicial executions.

Under law, Saini is an officer who has worked his way up the ranks with illegal acts serving as a catalyst for promotion. The state of Punjab has many such officers who have engaged in extrajudicial execution, prominent among them being Saini’s former superior, Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill. Whether those killed directly or under the supervision of such officers were innocents or criminals cannot be ascertained; they are dead.

That Saini, an officer with such a bloody curriculum vitae, will be appointed as the head of state police speaks volumes about accountability for crime in India.

Extrajudicial execution was state policy in Punjab from the early 80s through the mid 90s. Persons were murdered by police officers and bodies buried in unmarked mass graves or burned without an autopsy or any record during this period. Such actions were widespread in the state; it is cited a hallmark of counterinsurgency strategy by state police in India.

Interestingly, it was during the same period that the Supreme Court of India said that each case of extrajudicial execution is murder, going further to state that ‘executive elimination of persons is not allowed under Indian law.’ However, the Court’s interpretation of law has not helped victims in Indian states like Punjab, where extrajudicial execution has been overt or covert state policy.

Cops who have executed the state policy of ‘encounter killing’, and who have been praised by the country’s media as desi versions of Dirty Harry, have all been later found to have engaged in coldblooded murder for private benefit. The charge of murder against Saini, framed in 1994, which he successfully defended, is one such incident. However, behind his successful defense was yet another alleged act of crime – that of the forgery of documents that he produced in court to buttress his defence.

What should signal greater concern, however, is that unlike his counterparts in the rest of India, Saini is slated to be posted as the chief of police in Punjab.

In the absence of morale and discipline, what such an officer will be able to instil in his force is imaginable. Also, that such an officer has been considered for such an important position underlines that extrajudicial execution continues to be the state policy in Punjab.

Saini’s case indicates the policing policy of the Indian state. It also strongly suggests that in India, accountability is a selective quotient, applied with discrimination; it depends on from whom the accountability of action and inaction is sought.

In such an environment, concepts like the rule of law, fair trial, and equality before law do not have meaning or purpose.

Tweet

---

To Get Sikh Siyasat News Alerts via WhatsApp:

(1) Save Our WhatsApp Number 0091-855-606-7689 to your phone contacts; and
(2) Send us Your Name via WhatsApp. Click Here to Send WhatsApp Message Now.

Sikh Siyasat is on Telegram Now. Subscribe to our Telegram Channel

---

Related Topics: Asian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights, Sumedh Saini

Leave a Reply