The lawyers-police clash outside Delhi police headquarters on Tuesday demanding action against lawyers involved in the recent attacks on policemen in some courts in the capital takes one back to similar lawlessness in 1988 when the irrepressible then police commissioner Kiran Bedi was at the helm of the police. The face-off this time led to an estimated eight advocates and 20 policemen being injured in Tis Hazari lower courts but the real cause for worry is how a seemingly minor altercation led to such an ugly situation when law and order took a back seat. Apparently, there was little fear of authority and the clashes seemed to say goodbye to all norms of civilised behaviour. In this electronic age in which the cameras often do the talking the protest from the police came a day after lawyers went on a rampage at Saket court with a video of a constable being assaulted captured on camera. In Delhi’s milieu of bloated egos setting aside rational thinking, both sections are on ego trips and a spark is enough to ignite ego clashes.
Significantly, much of the anger was directed at a Delhi High Court order which seemed to take sides directing that “no coercive action” was to be taken against lawyers by the police. Many police personnel expressed disappointment over how the seniors had handled the situation. It certainly was not a pleasant sight, seeing an estimated 2,000 police personnel and their families gathering at the police headquarters shouting slogans and holding placards that told a tale of anger and disappointment. By Tuesday evening, buses full of family members of police personnel had reached India Gate from Dwarka. The High Court summarily suspended two policemen on Sunday last and transferred two senior personnel besides directing that no coercive action could be taken against lawyers. That this worsened the situation is a surmise but the court’s order could well have come after adequate feedback and documentary evidence from both sides whereby charges of partisan behaviour could have been averted. Evidently, as it happens, no lessons were learnt from the 1988 example. At that time, Kiran Bedi’s allegedly partisan approach in favour of the police had led lawyers to boycott courts for two months. This time around, the clash between the police and the lawyers ought to be handled in a more mature manner. It is indeed imperative that a working relationship be maintained between these two sections that have a task of maintaining law and order.
