On Policing In Pandemic, Mindless Arrests & Prison Overcrowding : Interview Criminal Justice & Police Accountability Project

In this two part series interview with Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project we are in conversation with Nikita Sonavane, Ameya Bokil and Srujana Bej, lawyers and team members at the CPA project. In the first part we discussed the need of documenting and intervening against the disproportionate harm caused by the criminal justice system against marginalized castes. In this second part, we will discuss their litigation work, policing in the pandemic and the way-forward for Indian criminal justice system. 1. In the last part, we discussed the problems with the substantial criminal law and how we criminalize. But you have also pointed out actual implementation of laws. Can you share how the procedural apparatus of the criminal justice system has exacerbated the situation through your recently published report on pandemic and policing. In your study on policing during the pandemic, you undertook analysis of more than 34000 arrest records and over 500 FIRs.Can you please explain the major findings and learnings of the report? The state's most visible strategy for addressing the Covid-19 pandemic was through extensive orders on permissible and impermissible movements and activities. These lockdown regulations and orders were vague, overbroad and disproportionate. Already the police with vast surveillance powers, habitual offenders' registers, a strong colonial legacy and discretionary powers disproportionately criminalizes marginalised communities, the pandemic from its earlier days became a tool for further harassing these marginalized groups. We saw visual evidence across media of police excesses during the lockdown- beating, strenuous physical activity or corporal punishment. The images themselves were showing who were these individuals at the receiving end of the violence- they were street vendors, small vegetable sellers, milk or meat sellers and other marginalized groups. We analyzed 34,000 arrest records and 500 FIRs and found that one out of five FIRs were against people on the street vendors or small shop owners. The proportion of FIR against pedestrians increased from 50% in the first lockdown and second lockdown to 89% during the third lockdown. A majority of these FIRs were filed as a result of police patrolling. We further conducted interviews with a few of the pedestrians who had been charged with violating the lockdown. Opposite to the narratives of the FIR, the story shared by pedestrians were different, many of the FIRs were cases of movement for essential services like for gas or medicines. But over 90% FIR in almost cut-copy-paste mode only stated that the person has been found to be violating the lockdown and their reasons were deemed to be 'unsatisfactory', 'unnecessarily', 'inappropriate', 'unclear' or 'invalid'. It was apparent that there was no check on the police's discretion in enforcing the lockdown. FIRs were simply recording of the judgment of police without stating the reasons explained by the individuals for stepping out. An FIR is supposed to state only the facts and circumstances of a specific instance, not the police's judgement of the specific issue. Thus the narratives of criminality are being constructed by the police using their discretion as the final word of the law. And the same was used to disproportionately target poor or marginalized groups. More than shopkeepers, the street vendors were slapped with FIRs, majority of whom were providing essential services and goods within permissible exemptions of lockdown. With respect to people who were selling meat and dairy products, we found that most of the FIRs were against the individuals belonging to the Muslim community. Some of them were charged with as minor things as being a little late in closing the shop despite having the requisite license from District Magistrates etc. Around 21% of the people accused in our FIRs were Muslims whereas the population of Muslims in the state of Madhya Pradesh is less than 7 percent. Almost three times! This was also the result of media narratives of criminality against certain communities. In a few cases the police were actively monitoring social media handles during the lockdown and charging people for 'spreading misinformation'. For instance, one individual was charged for having a WhatsApp display picture that said 'We are with Markaz Nizamuddin'. He was accused of publicly supporting the Jamaat and 'spreading dissatisfaction'. That was the extent of surveillance. Overall, 6000 individuals were arrested for merely violating the lockdown, and others over 4000 were arrested for petty offences like alcohol possession, excise offence or small time gambling mostly between 100 Rupees to 500 rupees. During the lockdown among those arrested for excise offences 27% belonged to the SC community, 23% belonged to the ST community and 10% to DNT communities. 10.85% of individuals arrested under...

On Policing In Pandemic, Mindless Arrests & Prison Overcrowding : Interview Criminal Justice & Police Accountability Project

Surbhi Karwa & Rajesh Ranjan

Tags