Think twice before you pull that trigger

When 75-year-old Sriramulu Patel was woken by the incessant barking of his dog, he knew something was amiss. The septuagenarian took his licenced revolver and went to check the source of disturbance. Barely did he open the door, a man tried to push past him into the house.
Patel fired twice and the intruder collapsed on the floor. After dragging him inside, Patel called the police.
The burglar survived the gunshot wounds and was taken into custody after being discharged from hospital. He was booked under Section 457 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code for ‘trespassing with the intention of committing a crime’.
So far, the police have refrained from filing charges against Patel as their preliminary investigation revealed that the act was in self-defence.
However, legal luminaries beg to differ. M Ranga Reddy and Justice Iyaapu Panduranga Rao, former High Court judges opine that Patel should be charged under relevant sections of the IPC. They are of the opinion that it should be the courts, which should judge Patel’s actions and no the police.
The whole episode calls our attention to the injury or death caused while exercising the right to self-defence. The Constitution provides us with the right to life. Naturally we have the right to defend it when someone threatens it.
When the threat materialises in the form of a physical confrontation, it is only natural that resistance to it will result in use of force — injury or death of assailant is always a possibility.
The question is; where do you draw the line between a desperate action to survive and intentional attempt to murder? Burglars or assailants don’t give notice before they strike. Under usual circumstances, the civilian gun-wielder has only a few seconds to react before pulling the trigger.
Therefore, following the legal procedure, of shouting out a warning followed by firing in the air and then, as a last resort, firing below the knees, is practically impossible.
One also has to take into consideration that the assailant/burglar is likely to be a hardened criminal with no qualms to kill you. He is likely to be better than you in close-quarters combat and use of knives/firearms — the worst part is that there is no way you can know.
Since most such incidents occur at night when visibility levels are low, judging the level of threat posed by the assailant becomes even trickier. The only option before the victim of an attack is to target the attacker with the intent to cause maximum damage.
All rules, though created with the best of intentions, can be bent and the laws providing for the right to self-defence are no exception to this.
Ours is a country (in)famous for ‘staged encounters’. Every year there are more exposes of the police, armed forces and intelligence agencies faking circumstantial evidence for illegal executions.
If those killing in self-defence are allowed to walk free even without the botheration of registering a case, it is only a matter of time before the rich and the well-connected start fabricating circumstantial evidence and bumping off their opponents.
Due course of law must be followed when injury or death is caused by an act of self-defence. Instead of taking the incident at face value, the investigative agencies must conduct an objective and thorough probe. Then it should be left to the courts to consider the merit of the case and arrive at a decision.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on March 7, 2012)

The king is naked, but don’t say a word

When do you find non-partisan behaviour among legislators?
When their images are at stake.
No wonder the parliamentarians were up in arms taking umbrage to Team Anna member Arwind Kejriwal’s comments on ‘criminal MPs.’ Some are planning to send privilege notice to Kejriwal for contempt of the dignity of the House.
"In this Parliament, rapists are sitting. In this Parliament murderers and looters are sitting," Kejriwal said at a rally in Ghaziabad criticising politicians for refusing to pass the Jan Lokpal bill.
Now the question is whether the legislature, State or Central, is above criticism and scrutiny.
Based on the mandatory affidavits filed by the candidates before the Election Commis­sion, several NGOs and civil society organisations have come out with disturbing statistics of our elected representatives. Almost one third of the parliamentarians (150) have criminal cases pending against them, 72 of them face serious charges.
Though the BJP could not beat the Congress in the 2009 elections, it overtook its rival in another department by getting 42 people with criminal cases elected, compared to the grand old party’s tally of 41.
There is no reason why people would not look down on the legislators considering their ‘illustrious’ conduct. An analysis of the whole bunch would require an encyclopedia-sized edition, so let us glance through conduct of a few luminaries in the recent past.

• Three Karnataka BJP ministers were forced to resign after they were caught on camera watching porn on their smartphones during Assembly proceedings.
• Twenty-six ministers have been sacked by Mayawati on charges ranging from abuse of power to corruption, from goondaism to rape and murder.
• A Trinamool minister in Mamata Banerjee’s ministry asked what a rape victim, a single mother of two children, was doing in a night club and that the rape charge was probably an extortion attempt. The CM who called the case ‘cooked up’ and her junior colleague had to eat their words within 24 hours when the police arrested the accused and found solid evidence.
• It was not long ago that khap panchayats, which are infamous for their role in ‘honour’ killings and gang rapes, found open support from the US-educated business magnate MP Naveen Jindal, who praised the kangaroo courts for their services in upholding the moral fabric of the society. 

The exalted members find time to pass doubling of their paychecks but can’t agree over key legislations that would power socio-economic change and governance — Women’s Bill and Lokpal Bill are the best examples.
A check on their finances would show that someone who entered politics with a monthly income of a few thousand rupees has become a billionaire (rupee) in less than a decade while devoting all his time to ‘serving the people’. Financial geniuses such as Warren Buffet are reduced to amateurs before the growth model of our representatives.
The legislators are human and err like humans. So what is the point in living under the self-conferred unassailable status of parliamentary ‘privilege’?

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on February 29, 2012)