Aam Aadmi Party , Somnath Bharti and the Khirki Extension 'raid'

( a compilation of my posts on Facebook related to the above matter)

20th Jan
AAP being accused of being a 'Vigilante' or of showing a 'mob mentality' in reference to the Law Minister-Police scuffle, can only be a social question. Being a 'Vigilante' or showing a 'mob mentality' in regard to the working of police department is NO crime in the legal sense, for which a person may be punished by a law court. It can only be a social question - as to whether the society is ready to accept such behavior from certain people or not. 
I am personally not in favour of the 'vigilante' behavior shown in this case. However so far as the question of 'change that we seek' is concerned, the conduct of the AAP's law minister cannot be dismissed away as wrong. Afterall , till this day the existing system has always taken advantage of the absence of fear of a 'vigilante' and 'mob mentality' to mould itself the way it is!
There exist a concept of Police Discretion in the working of the police. It is an unavoidable evil of the functioning of Police. The Police or often accused of abusing this power in choosing which case they investigate and how, and which they don't. It has been a wishful thinking of the Law and Justice that the Police shall always use the discretion correctly in the interest of the society.
In this case, the Law minister had himself summoned the media and collected a lot of people around while demanding of the Police to take action against the accused. The Police , since they are always armed with the power of Police Discretion, were brought under pressure to apply the discretion Correctly while the whole world was watching over them to follow up on the complain.
Such a pressure on the Police , in no way, can be made a regular feature of the functioning of our society. Hence this vigilante behavior, the 'mob mentality' is denounced. But at the same time , it should serve as a reminder to the Police about their functioning and the use/abuse of their discretionary power that they are not always unchallenged.
Important to remember is that the accusations on the AAP of a 'Vigilante behavior' or the 'mob mentality' is only a social question, not a legal question.

20th Jan

The accusations on the AAP of being a 'Vigilante' or of showing a 'mob mentality' in reference to the Law Minister-Police scuffle, can only be a social question. Being a 'Vigilante' or showing a 'mob mentality' in regard to the working of police department is NO crime in the legal sense, for which a person may be punished by a law court. It can only be a social question - as to whether the society is ready to accept such behavior in *a regular course from certain people*, or not.
I am personally not in favour of the 'vigilante' behavior shown in this case. However, so far as the question of 'change that we seek' is concerned, the conduct of the AAP's law minister cannot be dismissed away as wrong. Afterall , till this day the existing system has always taken advantage of the absence of fear of a 'vigilante' and 'mob mentality', only to mould itself the way it is!
There exist a concept of Police Discretion in the working of the police. It is an unavoidable evil of the functioning of Police. The Police are often accused of abusing this power- while making a choice which case they investigate and how, and which they don't. It has been a only desirous belief of the Law and Justice that the Police shall always use the discretion correctly in the interest of the society. But the prevailing truth stands otherwise.
In this case, the Law minister had himself summoned the media and collected a lot of people around while demanding of the Police to take action against the accused. The Police , since they are always armed with the power of Police Discretion, were brought under pressure to apply the discretion Correctly while the whole world was watching over them to follow up on the complain.
Such a pressure on the Police , in no way, can be made a regular feature of the functioning of our society. Hence this vigilante behavior, the 'mob mentality' is denounced. But at the same time , it should serve as a reminder to the Police about their functioning and the use/abuse of their discretionary power that they are not always unchallenged.
Important to remember is that the accusations on the AAP of a 'Vigilante behavior' or the 'mob mentality' is only a social question, not a legal question, in as much as the police behavior in India as also been a social issue, not a legal issue so far.

20th Jan

One possible reason why the Delhi Police is under the Delhi's Central Govt and not the State Govt ,is that when two government authorities are present in the same area, the police has to be naturally placed under the authority of the larger of the two.
However this issue Cannot become a volley point for the police to perform lackdasical. no matter whose authority they are, the safety and law/order cannot be skivved off.
AAP's law minister didnot do any illegality in demanding of the police to act. The opposition is however making it look as if some illegality was being done by AAP'S Law Minister by demanding of the police to 'illegally' arrest some people on drug trafficking and immoral trade charges.

The mob mentality/ Vigilantism done by the AAP's minister was only about putting to scrutiny how the police was applying its power of discretion in regard to an investigation. There is no challenge to the police discretionary power available to the police officers.

20th  jan

AAP needs to put before the people the mistake that the 3 cops have committed whose suspension they are demanding.
A mis-application of the Power of Police Discretion can be accepted as a mistake too, while the media was watching over.
But then it is important that the mistake/crime be told to the public.
Delhi Police not being under the powers of Delhi State Government is an administrative issue and it must be having its own academic reasons to justify it. AAP should NOT use the dharna route to achieve this . Instead , adopt a peaceful legal recourse.

20th Jan
It has been a passing event in the remote areas that when the policemen are informed about a crime happening at some place, they would refuse to act depending on their vested interest, and always cited the reason ''don't tell us what our duty is. We know it pretty well, we will do what we have to. You just get off. ''
Surely, the discretionary powers of a policeman are unavoidable and hence an unchallenged , unquestioned entity. But the policemen have been burdened to apply their discretion in the welfare and the interest of people , not meant to protect their vested interest.
In the AAP's law minister versus the Police, the verbal exchanges reveals to us that the Police have become habituated of serving the VIPs and acting their discretion as their hidden interest. The initial refusal to act on the pretext that they don't have a warrant shows that they need to undergo a mental, a behavioural and a legal knowledge change too.
BUT the AAP must not go on agitation for this event at this scale. It can be achieved peacefully too, through the legal and court trials.
Please calm down.

21st Jan

AAP when in Government, is in a status of being tagged 'better resourced', however structurally weak the Govt maybe. Agitation is no honourable way to meet this problem now. AAP can utilise the resources to pull this fight. AAP has not demonstrated the use of the state resources to the people regarding this fight. Where is Prashant Bhushan , Yogendra Yadav and the other ideologue of the AAP? Do they think it is okay to contest in the Dharna form this issue.
One is forced to question within himself -- What is the ultimate demand of AAP? To have the three cops suspended? For what? What crime? What mistake? Has the AAP spoken that to the people and placed it to the law court. The mistakes of the cops are only administrative and not so grave considering that they eventually succumbed before the demands of AAP that fateful night.

The control of Delhi Police being with the Delhi's UT gOVT, OR , the Delhi's State Government is an area of academic research in Public Administration. When more than two governments are present in the same area, it is logical to accept that the larger of the two government will control the local police. Otherwise there will be an administrative problem. The larger interest will have the fear of falling victim of the smaller, regional, politics.
Here the AAP's claim has been that the larger govt has failed to ensure the safety of the regional people , of Delhi, while it has the control over the Delhi Police.
Therefore an academic solution should be sought, instead of making a 'populist' kind of unjustified Rhetorical demand.

AAP's action are not appealing to the intellect, and have shown the illness suffered by the COMMONERS , the Plebeian, as depicted in the Shakespeare's literature

21st Jan

अगर पुलिस नहीं सुन रही है तो पहले न्यायलय में अर्जी देकर केंद्र के खिलाफ अभियोग करो। यदि अभियोग जीत जाने के बसद भी पुलिस नहीं सुने और केंद्र के आधीन रहे तब यह अनशन करो। मान लो की पुलिस राज्य सरकार के आधीन आने के बाद फिर भी नहीं सुनती है - तब क्या पुलिस को ही फांसी की सजा दे दोगे?
"आप" अभी सरकार सत् है। यदि आप ही न्यायलय के द्वारा अपनी बात नहीं रखेगी तब और कौन सुनेगा। क्या गारंटी है कि यदि आज "आप" के दबाव में दिल्ली पुलिस को परिवर्तित कर भी दे - तो बाद में वापिस नहीं कर देगी ?

22nd Jan

this forum ,India Against Corruption, is behaving very bad. the judicial pronouncement on Somnath Bharati of 'Tampering with evidence' what Mr bharati is claiming to have done a 'sting operation' is a biased action of the court. alright in legal technicality his actions may have amounted to a ' 'tampering with the evidence', but the law court should have accounted- was the evidence in this case an proven 'objective evidence' which could have not been influenced by a previous party? the sting op evidence created by mr bharti could not have been overlooked of it fitted the consolidated theory being made available from someone, including Mr Bharati. the behaviour of judge needed be watched by the members of public. and further ,the judge only gave it as an observation ,not as a verdict for an allegation put on Mr Bharati. Talking to someone is Not a crime if he has spwcifically not been barred from speaking to someone. It was a case of a 'being amounted to' - THE TALKS TO A WITNESS being amounted to UNDULY INFLUENCING THE WITNESS. the court need be watched over for what it was to do on the value of a new sting op evidence created.

23rd Jan

there is a new logic and a law emerging out. that is, everytime a minister of AAP complains to the governor of Delhi that the Delhi Police is refusing to take charge of a crime in accordance with his duties, then, for the sake of an impartial probe in to the matter both , the minister and the errant policeman, will have to go on holiday .
Question : cannot the police administration conduct a unilateral enquiry as to whether their police officer has acted fair w.r.t his prescribed duties or not? why would they want the minister to descend? the delhi police is as it is not working under the authority of the local government.

22nd Jan
Let us do some dissection of the Bharti-SHO scuffle to know what all went, and against the ideal way of doing things.
To start, let us create a simple analogy which we will use later to help simplify and understand the event.
Consider a police checkpoint where a lots of people are passing by. The police stops a few people to check their passes and catches hold of one person without a proper document (e.g. His bike registration/driving license.). This man argues with the police on being caught and makes a certain allegations on them. 
1) He accuses the police of being biased against him because a lot many people had slipped through the checkpoint whom he knew didn't have the proper documents either, but were not checked by the police.

Can his argument be held valid- that the police acted biased targeting him in particular, for the reason that many had slipped through the checkpoint?

The law courts have generally disregarded such argument thereby upholding the Police Discretion that the Policemen can stop any person at their choice/at random and allow other to pass through.
It is because of a natural logic that all the people cannot be checked to a pin-point accuracy all the time regarding compliance of all the laws. 
Consider the hypothetical situations - what if Someone has slipped through after showing his documents which are actually counterfeit? 
Does this event give police a right to stop all people and hold them back even when they have displayed a valid document, simply because the police need time to investigate whether those documents are authentic or a counterfeit?

No. 

Then what could be a general rule to handle this possibility?
The challenge is that there can be infinite such possibilities during the 'game' of the police and the criminals.
Hence, a natural logic to the existence of the power of police discretion.
Discretions are hugely susceptible to bringing corruption in the functioning of the police. The Police may intentionally allow Someone to slip through and later claim legal defense of an intentional act as a simple mistake of discretion, if they are caught later.

However, consider a reverse situation regarding the limitations of the Police Discretions.
Can a policeman 'still' refuse to act his duties on a complain when everyone is shouting or even witnessing a suspected crime scene, right from the Media, the Minister as an elected representative, and the people themselves? 
Can the policeman continue to hide behind the claims/his discretionary powers such as ''he doesn't have search warrant'', ''he knows his duty, nobody need to remind him'', ''he will act as per how and when he will deem correct''?
No.

The Discretion is not an infinite power which can be applied with any whimsical choice. It MUST be applied to preserve the interest of the people.It must bE aimed at preventing a crime to happen.

In the scuffle, The SHO's initial refusal to act was an act not in accordance with his prescribed duties. 
In the course of scuffle, Bharti might have spoken things which are inappropriate, racist, or even gender sensitive. He can be charged for those acts/words and be tried. The women groups and the human rights group are accusing Bharti on the same.
But the important question raised by this misdeamour of Bharti is the behaviour of police - if they have become habituated of acting at the call of VIPs and neglecting towards the Aam Aadmi? Have they become addicted to a certain kind of answers in regard to their functioning, and forgetful to what the ideal SOP requires of them. 
We come back to another politically important question- what is that change which we seek.

23rd Jan

Kiran Bedi ji is confused by her chosen thoughts and now she is confusing the people.
She believes that the police have been put on leave so to pacify the AAP.
And the she goes to demand that ''therefore'' the law Minister of Delhi should also be made to step down, so to balance the justice.
She is mistaken because the Police action against their people is in reference to their own working while lots of other FIRs are being registered against the errant law Minister of Delhi.
Each party involved in the scuffle, the SHO and the Minister, is being checked , scrutinized and held responsible for his mistakes. There are clear cut justices. It is not mutual settlement happening. It is Kiran ji own fanciful thinking. She is even accusing of ''de moraleising'' of the cops, which cannot be a case. It the Police actions are wrong against their own cops of putting them on paid leave, let their be a lawsuit on that.

23rd Jan

Abhijat Srivastava : i have rechecked the video footage of the raid which was done on the quest of Mr Bharti , the law minister. i believe that there is a case against the delhi police SHO for refusal / neglect of duty although he amended it away by conducting the raids of the place after an intense four hours of haggling with Mr bharti.
the media is playing it out negatively by over-playing the fringe issues of this episodes - the gender related talks, racism, et al. these issues in this episode are the 'branches' of the tree whose trunk is formed from the case of neglect of duty by the Delhi Police.
politics is the craft of finding the most consensual opinion from among the various opinions available in the market of ideas and coverting this consensual opinion into a legislation. AAP is in steep need of a supporting bureaucracy to deliver the promises they have made. This dharna was only litle premature in this direction. AAP may have to reconsider this Dharna later again if the bureaucracy doesn't amend up to their standards.
the Dharna will have to be done in conjuction with a lawsuit against the involved authorities this time, and with the aim to bring down some top ranks, not the SHO.

24th Jan

@Mudresh : confusion of your mind is by our own devices , and the imaginative understanding of 'raid'. The police can 'raid' Someone's purse on a complain BUT may not do any invasive search ! The key to 'raiding' a place or a person and yet not becoming Invasive is by the ''method of delivery''. Police can and does it , by politely asking a person to co-operate and show by his own will the baggage, answer to the enquiries, et al. No search warrant is needed for this. In case the person refuses to co-operate, then he can be detained, a search warrant procured and then an invasive search be conducted. Remember , on receiving a call on ''Dial 100'', the police cannot delay the actions for want of a warrant.

24th Jan

And next, the scenario was not about ''anyone '' asking the police to act, it was the law minister of delhi, AND in the presence of the media , which means the people of India as their witness.

24th Jan
The source of confusion is coming from a thought that ''Police should be freed from Political interference''.
Here the idea of ''Political interference'' is actually suppose to be related to the undue side of it. For example, the secret manipulations done on the CBI by the central government.
NOW Hail the IQ of the Indian people.
Some people are thinking the the orders given by Mr Bharti, the law minister of Delhi, to the police to raid a certain place also amounted to the ''undue political interference'', nomatter that Mr Bharti did it in the open/transparent way, in the presence of the media, and in the interest of the society !
Articles after articles are coming in the newspaper focusing on the good, professional police service. But they are lacking on the good analytical skill that actually it is the delhi police which has got 'stinged' in this case in the presence of the media, not what crime was supposedly happening in the place which everyone was hoping to catch on the camera. 

24Th Jan

Has anyone got the video evidence of the alleged misconducts by Mr Bharti in the 'raid' episode? For information, as against the general perception , Mr Bharti did not take law into his hands.

24th jan
Has anyone got the video evidence of the alleged misconducts by Mr Bharti in the 'raid' episode? For information, as against the general perception , Mr Bharti did not take law into his hands during the raid. Someone please teach this to Ms Kavita Srivastava on NDTV 24x7
Technically, it is the police which has been stinged in the Raid videotapes, not the Ugandans or any other person! Delhi Police has been caught not performing its duties.

24th Jan
media is working on the fringe issues, not the core issues. This is because it will help take away the popularity and righteous view about the AAP.

24Th Jan
here, in the Somnath Bharti case it seems the 'Ambulance Chaser' phenomena is happening , done with the help of the media.
Someone seems to have ''prompted'' some words such as 'racism', 'women rights' etc, and the media along with the political rivals of Mr Bharti have picked the sound and start playing it up, night and day.
Amusingly, there are no videotape records to sustain the charge of racism, gender etc directly to be established against Mr Bharti. If any such comments, the presence of the video evidence should directly establish if it was Mr Bharti who spoke that, or Someone from the crowd.

Secondly, the act of calling the crowd as 'Mob' is outrageous too.. what differs a crowd from a 'mob' , while apparently both are similar in terms of presence of a large number of people. Does the 'mob' still exist when the media is present to witness,
The police is present, and an elected representative who is haggling with the police to prevent some nuisance in the area, which the police is hesitating.
Would we still call this a 'mob'.

It is all a game of 'Chinese whisper' being played via the news channels- Raising the ghost issues, or atleast the fringe issues

24Th Jan

Thank god, the Ugandan women were not newly married!
If Some political rivals would have prompted the word 'dowry' in some news media, then Mr Bharti would have been facing the charges of dowry harassment on those Ugandan women in the news channels !

24Th Jan
@Ashok ji : Bharti trouble with the SHO cannot exactly and definitively be termed as 'order'. It can be an 'instruction', and an 'appeal', a 'request'. Please check the video tapes and check the tone of Bharti's voice to confirm that. Further, Bharti indeed has no authority over the Delhi Police , which is what the AAP's ado is about. Therefore , it cannot be considered as an 'order'. That what is being said as a 'raid done by Bharti and his men' can be said as a mustering of the local people at the place where some social nuisance was suspected to be happening. The police was called upon, and ''asked'' (an appeal, a request, BUT not an 'order') to 'check the place'(= ''raid''). The instructions being given to the police were aimed to properly investigate the place, because the local beliefs are that the police is complicit in the suspected nuisance and police mis-applies their power to investigate , only to let of the offenders. Please read the situation in another reasonable way and check for the suppor

24th Jan

Vigilantism is something different from a Mob Behavior. The news reports earlier described the episode of Khirki Extension as 'Vigilante' . Some news channel termed it as Mob Behavior. It is difficult to say as why which channel chose which descriptive term for this episode- for lack of academic knowledge into sociology and mass psychology, OR, for the observation the editors had drawn after reviewing the event.
One video of the episode shows that at one point the Delhi Police had come in conflict with the news reporters and cameramen, when the latter raised slogans against them.
This matter has become issue of immense public interest now and a clear justice needs to emerge to settle the accusations and counter-accusations flying around.

24th Jan

There are some interesting and non-linear behavior of the Nature which is imbibed in the Khirki Extension Mid night raid episode.
The two sides of people at war are founding their arguments on this two non-linear truths . Ponder over it:
1) One person can be lying(or mistaken) -possible;
two people -lying -possible;
three people- lying - possible; 
........
Large crowd - lying- possible ?? ;
...... Everybody - lying - possible ???

People are standing by two different sides of the Truth in regard to a large crowd. Some person say that Even a large crowd could be lying. Others say that everyone canNOT be taken for granted to be lying.
History and Nature has shown umpteen times that lots of people could also be lying(or atleast mistaken), while in most of the occasions the same cannot be taken for granted. Therefore, the answer is truely non-linear.
In this case, When the crowd asked police to check and investigate, a simple action by the police of politely asking the 'suspects' to show out for the satisfaction of this crowd, if at all they were not doing anything wrong, could have saved this huge trouble.
The source of this divided opinion between the two groups of people is sowed in the Nature itself, about the possibilities of speaking a lie by a 'large number of people'. And then, Divided opinion means Politics.
What happens when a crowd suspects something against Someone, VERSUS, one single person suspecting something against someone. In laws, there is no easy answer to that. Answer to this situation is not as simply 'linearly logical' as one may think. Sometimes the logic fails too, after which justice can be done only by a good human action.

A polite and a prompt action by the police could have saved the day.

24th Jan

Please correct two facts : 1) Police did NOT act in accordance with the law . 2) The legal understanding of why Bharti called the Media is Transparency about the actions and events. Propaganda is not an acceptable explanation.

24th Jan
The Firstpost link just recently published on the AAP's Facebook page mentions , once more, that the legal provisions exist for the police to 'raid' a place suspected of involved in drugs or immoral trade, without a warrant. The video tapes show that Police kept refusing to raid the premises on all sorts of excuses including lack of a warrant !

24th Jan
To thoughtlessly connect the presence of the Media with Propaganda motive , and not Transparency, honesty , and Justice - I think, is an IQ issue of our nationality.

24th Jan
यह विषय कानूनी तकनीकियों से भरा हुआ है इसलिए कई अल्प बुद्धि मनुष्यों के दिमाग के ऊपर से निकल रहा है। आम आदमी पार्टी ने नहीं कहा है कि वहां खिड़की गाँव में वैश्यावृति ड्रग्स चल रहे हैं। यह एक शिकायत है जो की वहां के नागरिकों ने पुलिस से करी हुई है। इन नागरीको की दूसरी शिकायत आम आदमी पार्टी को प्राप्त हुई की स्थानीय पुलिस ने कई सारी शिकायतों के बाद भी कोई कार्यवाही नहीं करी है और कि पुलिस इन असामाजिक तत्वों की साथ हम-जोली है। ड्रग के क़ानून और अनैतिक व्यापार ( देह व्यापार) क़ानून के मुताबिक़ पुलिस को इन आरोप की जांच के लिए वारंट की आवश्यकता नहीं है। दिल्ली पुलिस दिल्ली की राज्य सरकार के आधीन नहीं है। इसलिए इन सभी बातों को ध्यान में रखें और फिर इस सोमनाथ भारती प्रकरण को समझें। भारती ने मात्र पुलिस को निर्देशित किया की वह तुरंत वहां धरपकड़ करे। पुलिस पर यह आरोप पहले ही है की वह कुछ कार्यवाही नहीं कर रही थी। उस रात पुलिस ने आना कानी कर के आरोपों को सही साबित किया है। पुलिस ने अन्तःत चार घंटे बाद धरपक्कड़ करी आख़िरकार।

24th Jan

देह व्यापार के आरोप के लिए सबूत की आवश्यकता नहीं है। पुलिस की धर-पकड़ और स्तिथि जन्य प्रमाण मान्य होते है। यह क़ानून के अनुसार है। यह संभव है की ऐसे में इस क़ानून का दुरूपयोग हो जाये। मगर फिर पुलिस के शिष्ट व्यवहार के प्रभाव से दुरूपयोग की मुसीबतों से बचा जा सकता है।
मगर फिर यह भी संभव है कि पुलिस यदि मिली-भगत है, तब वह शिष्ट व्यवहार के बहाने अपराधियों को बाच निकलने या की स्तिथि जन्य प्रमाणों को परिवर्तित कर देने का समय दे दे।
ऐसे में जन प्रतिनिधि, और प्रजा तंत्र का चतुर्थ स्तंभ , और न्याय प्रक्रिया अथवा तथ्य-प्रमाण का अचूक संसाधन - मीडिया - की मौजूदगी में हुई पुलिस की कार्यवाही सारा दूध का दूध और पानी का पानी कर सकती है।
इस प्रकरण में यही हुआ है - और नतीजों में दिल्ली पुलिस गलत दिखाई पड़ी है।


Popular posts from this blog

BODMAS Rule सैद्धांतिक दृष्टि से क्या है?

The STCW 2010 Manila (Scam) Convention

Difference between Discretion and Decision making