There exists a cell of policemen within the Delhi Police which is accountableto no one but itself. Operating without uniforms, these are the dreadedencounters specialists of Delhi. The cell is effectively run by an ACP by thename of Rajbir Singh, who was given several quick promotions through the ranksfor the several "encounters" in which he is supposed to have killed severaldreaded terrorists. Though it is well-known that these "encounters" areeuphemisms used to describe killings in cold blood by the special cell, therehave hardly been any official investigations into these "encounters",despite the guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission requiring suchinvestigations.
However, an unofficial investigation by the People’s Union forDemocratic rights and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties into some of theencounter killings by the Special Cell has raised several serious questionsabout whether the persons killed in such fake encounters were terrorists or evencriminals or merely nameless traders from across the border who were picked up,killed in cold blood, and then branded as terrorists who were killed in theseheroic encounters which are notched up to get medals and promotions for thepoliceman of the Special Cell.
It is this Special Cell which had investigated the Parliament attack case andhad spectacularly completed the investigation in a few days by arresting fouralleged conspirators including S. A. R. Geelani and a lady named Navjot Sandhu.Geelani, who refused to confess, despite being tortured by the Special Cell, hasbeen acquitted by the High Court. So has Navjot Sandhu, who has unfortunatelylost her mental composure during her incarceration. The appeals of the othertwo, a surrendered militant Afzal and Navjot’s husband Shaukat are currentlybeing heard by the Supreme Court. The Special Cell has been found guilty offabricating records and evidence. Unfortunately, no action has been takenagainst the policemen for the torture and the fabrication of evidence and theystill continue to operate with impunity.
Geelani had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court many months ago about howpolicemen of the Special Cell had been following him after he was released andthat he feared for his life. His fears appear to have been justified now in thelight of the recent murderous attack on him just outside the house of hislawyer. Though it is still not certain who is behind the attack, the manner inwhich the Delhi police has been conducting the investigation certainly seems tosuggest that they are not interested in finding the attacker and those behindit.
The police began by publicly raising questions about Geelani and his lawyerNandita Haksar. Why had nobody heard the gunshots, they asked, insinuating thathe had not been shot there (as if he had shot himself or would risk gettinghimself killed by driving to his lawyer instead of going to the hospital aftergetting shot). Stories were planted in the press that since the bullets were notextracted from his body, perhaps he was not even shot. Why did Haksar not informthe police immediately (though she told them that her entire attention wasfocused on taking him to hospital and saving his life)? Why had Geelani’sfamily not handed over his sweater and jacket to the police (though it washanded over as soon as the police asked for it)?
The police have now become adept at raising all these questions though themedia which is attached to the police, or on the "crime beat." Thesejournalists "embedded with the police" (a la the journalists embedded withthe US army in Iraq) become a convenient tool for the police to disseminatedisinformation or in raising such red herrings. It was this phenomena ofjournalists being fed exclusive "inside information" about the Parliamentattack investigation, which led to the totally tendentious and grossly unfairand contemptuous film being telecast by Zee TV on the eve of the judgement bythe trial court, in which Geelani, Navjot and others were shown as hatching andexecuting a conspiracy to attack Parliament.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Courtallowed the film to be telecast (in deference to "freedom of the press")though the courts have often restrained publications which only expose judicialwrongdoing (such as the Aaj Tak telecast about the former Chief Justice ofMadras against whom they had a copy of an impeachment motion containing severalserious charges of corruption).
Geelani in his statement to the police from the hospital did indicate that hesuspects the involvement of the Special Cell in his attack. Geelani had not toldanyone about the fact that he was going to Haksar’s house that evening (whichappointment had only been fixed a short while earlier). Only the Special cellwhich had been following him and monitoring his calls could have known that hewas going to meet his lawyer that evening. Geelani has been a great thorn intheir flesh. He had not only exposed their torture to get him to confess, hisacquittal had raised lots of inconvenient questions about the means and methodsof the Special Cell.
The Supreme Court where the police’s appeal against hisacquittal is pending is likely to be even more scathing in their judgement aboutthe conduct of the investigators. It is also well known that officials of suchcells like the Special Cell are routinely in contact with hardened criminals whocould be asked to attack Geelani. Thus, in a word, the Special Cell had theknowledge (of Geelani’s meeting with Haksar), the motive and the means to dothis. This however still does not mean that they are involved in the attack. Butthe needle of suspicion is certainly on them.
The investigation so far by theCrime branch of the Delhi police has not got anywhere and the stories andquestions being planted by them thorough the embedded media clearly indicatesthat the investigation so far is not honest. It is therefore necessary in theinterest of justice that this investigation be transferred to an independentbody, perhaps to the NHRC or even the CBI. It is only then that the truth aboutwho tried to silence Geelani may emerge. However, in any case, the special cellmust be made accountable. It is time that an official independent investigationwas conducted into all their "encounters".
Prashant Bhushan is an eminent public interest lawyer in the Supreme Court.
