NEW DELHI: The Punjab Police and its counsel Additional Solicitor General, K,T.S.Tulsi, in particular, ‘were at the receiving end in the Supreme Court last week during the hearing of a habeas corpus matter, wherein the police have been accused of ‘abducting’ seven members of a family from Bagga village of Amritsar district during October 1991.
‘The whereabouts of these persons, in the age group of 14 10 85 years, ‘was not known even all today and ‘were suspected to have been killed by the police.
The matter had come up before the judge Bench of the Chief Justice, Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Justice A.S. ‘Anand and Justice S.P. Bharucha, in view of the inquiry report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The Apex Court on September 15, last year, while taking strong exception to the way the Director General of Police, K.P.S. Gill, had dealt with the matter had ordered the CBI Director to personally conduct the inquiry.
Though the CBI report was taken out of these ailed cover by the judges, but its contexts were not revealed in the open.
Later, referring to the way the top police officers of the State had reacted in the matter, Justice Ahmadi observed “It is a serious matter, people are being killed, their whereabouts and their dead bodies are not known. And the DGP quickly says that the petition has become infructuous.”
Pointing out to the contentions of DGP; in the affidavit that “majesty of law will prevail eventually by bringing the guilty to the court of the law for receiving suitable punishment, the Chief Justice of India said” No doubt we will ensure that the law is maintained and its majesty is upheld, But what about the people who are being eliminated in this way. Who will be accountable for that? When the Additional Solicitor General, K.T.S. Tulsi arguing on behalf of Punjab police, tried to explain, how the officers have been under constant stress and in fact deserved commendation from this court, Justice Bharucha snapped:” You are asking for commendation from this court for police officers who eliminate persons. It is a most blatant thing I have heard from you.”
But, when Tulsi further tried to defend the police officers, Justice Ahmadi cut him short by observing: “There is a limit to protecting these officers; you are trying to defend the impossible. Being a Taw officer, you owe a responsibility to this court. Seven people are dead and there is evidence to it. The whole thing is very disturbing.” “Mr, Tulsi have some sense of proportion, sense of propriety and the institution to which you belong. I don’t think you can assist the court you arc here only to hold a brief for the police.” the CJI observed.
However, when Tulsi went on to submit that sweeping statements: were being made about the functioning of the Punjab police, a visible angry Justice Ahmadi said 1st is like saying that the court is demoralizing the force. Tulsi, the not the case you can defend, If the state government cannot manage the force, let them say so, we will tell them what to do.”
In an another case, the judges directed the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, to record the statement of one Surinder Singh Fauji, ‘who was a witness to the killing of six persons by Punjab police near Beas river on December 14, 1992. Fauji had somehow managed to escape the killing. Interestingly, when Justice Ahmadi asked Fauji’s counsel, R.S. Sodhi, as to whether he should direct the Punjab State to trace the whereabouts of his client, Sodhi said he would do that himself, otherwise his client would meet the same fate as the other six persons.
To this Justice Bharucha added “I will be also very reluctant to do anything with the establishment to which the police force belongs.
Article extracted from this publication >> May 19, 1995
