Atiq Ahmed, whose wife Shaista Parveen is now on-the-run with bomb-maker Guddu Muslim, has the right not to be deprived of his life strictly in accordance with law as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, despite having 100 FIRs against him and killing Umesh Pal, a witness against him. He and his brother, Ashfaq, were shot dead while divulging damning evidence against Guddu Muslim, raising suspicions that Arun Maurya, Lavlesh Tiwari and Sunny Singh who shouted slogans of “Jai Shree Ram!” before they were bundled away, may have had state backing. The fact that the three killers chatted on a WhatsApp group has emerged.
The state, which includes the Supreme Court, has miserably failed to ensure the rule of law by giving protection to Atiq and Ashfaq, thereby allowing them to be shot dead while interacting with reporters. The Supreme Court reportedly dismissed their petition by stating the “state will take care of you.” How well the state of Ulta Pradesh has done that is now left for all to see with their gunning down.
That too, after the police announced the date, time and venue they would be taken in handcuffs for a medical examination, allowing the three youths to fire 18 rounds of bullets within 22 seconds at Atiq and Ashfaq from Turkish Zigana guns priced between Rs 6 lakh and Rs 12 lakh, which are banned in India. How did Maurya, Tiwari and Singh get these weapons? Despite rumours of Atiq and Ashfaq having ISIS links, the truth may be more shocking. For the state appears prima facie, to be complicit in these killings.
Some unfounded reports have alleged the killers came in a police jeep and left in a police jeep. Whether they really came in a police jeep or not has to be proved but the fact that reporters were allowed to interact with these dons when the threat perception was very high speaks of the negligence of the judiciary which shifted the burden on the state to protect Atiq and Ashraf who knew they would be killed.
This is not the first time the judiciary has failed in its duty to protect the lives and liberties of citizens accused of heinous crimes. The Bombay high court did not immediately grant a simply request by a Jesuit priest, Stan Swamy for a sipper, aggravating his torture in judicial custody leading to his death. The remission granted to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case where the killers and rapists were garlanded is another example of emasculating the judiciary.
Whether having links with Pakistan’s ISI and ISIS, the due process of law must be followed, however tortuous it may be. If a US Court can take less than a year to sentence reprobate police officer Derrick Chauvin to 20 years in jail for killing a Black man, George Floyd, in 2021, then we must initiate reform of our criminal justice system.
One of these reforms is that judges deliver judgments in seriatim which means separate judgments when one or more judges differ from the majority in minor points of law. But civil law countries like Germany and France follow the principle of unanimity and anonymity where all judges on a bench deliver just one unanimous judgment without anybody knowing who wrote it. This is what is known as per curiam as distinguished from judgments in seriatim. We need to follow this system.
In India, concurring judgments delivered separately by individual judges comprising a five-judge Constitution bench causes confusion among the lower courts because nobody knows which judgment must be followed because they concur with the main principle while saying different things. And sometimes ignoring what needs to be stressed.
Why did the shooters shoot Atiq and Ashfaq dead? How did they get the dummy camera and microphone made? Who financed them? Why did the police handcuff both the brothers together when this is not allowed when both were high security risks? Why were they taken to a hospital for a medical examination which could have been conducted within the jail itself? And finally, whether these questions will be answered in a judgment which dissects the response of the state to the killings in judicial custody remains to be seen.
Gangsters have no religion, but surprisingly, Ulta Pradesh keeps data on the religion of those killed in encounters. Out of 28 gangsters killed in 2017, 15 were Muslims, 14 out of 41 killed in encounters in 2018 were Muslims. In 2020, out of 26 gangsters killed, 21 were Hindus while just five were Muslims.
Just seven Muslims out of 26 killed in encounters in 2021while till April 15, 11 Hindus and three Muslim gangsters were killed in Ulta Pradesh till April 15, 2023. This data has been furnished by the state police themselves. This leads to the inference that Ulta Pradesh does not discriminate between Hindus and Muslims while bumping off 183 criminals till date which propelled the state to the dubious distinction of having the highest number of encounter killings between 2009 and 2013.
Atiq Ahmed controlled the postings in the local police even seeing that officers who did not obey his diktat like Lalji Shukla, former SP of Prayagraj which was then known as Allahabad were transferred. Atiq allegedly planned for bombs to be thrown at his own self, to implicate Lalji Shukla. Atiq started as a tongawalla and killed a notorious corporator, Chand Baba in the late 1990s before getting a ticket from the Samajwadi Party to become an MLA. When the BSP’s Raju Pal defeated Atiq’s brother, Ashraf in the assembly seat vacated by Atiq in 2004, Pal was chased and killed on the streets of Sangam city.
The police have links with politicians-turned-criminals which is why they are rewarded. In Goa, a deputy SP, Kiran Poduwal, was rewarded with the President’s police medal despite a complaint about his nexus with a politician against whom there were many complaints. In Ulta Pradesh, as in Mumbai, the police are sometimes hand-in-glove with criminals.
This is why Atiq and Ashraf have landed up in a morgue. When you live by the gun, you will die by the gun. The only exception being Harishankar Tiwari, the don from Gorakhpur, now over 80 years. He is the exception but not the rule.
Dr Olav Albuquerque holds a PhD in law and is a senior journalist and advocate at the Bombay High Court
