Why the police are singularly accountable for Bengaluru stampede

THe deaths of 11 people during the RCB’s recent IPL victory celebrations could have been prevented if the police had done their duty well as per the law. While four senior police officers, including the SHO and Commissioner of Police (CP), Bangalore, have been suspended for lapses on their part, many others have escaped accountability. Prevention is the basic philosophy behind all police actions, as per the charter of their duties since British times; the laws bestow upon them sufficient executive powers to that effect. Thus, the police are singularly accountable for a tragedy if they fail to exercise their powers to protect human lives.

The responsibility of the Bengaluru police did not end at refusing permission for a victory procession; it was also their duty to see that its orders were obeyed. The functions of both the police and magistracy are combined in one authority of the CP, who has the powers to issue prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to ensure safety and security on the streets. With these powers, the CP can defy even the CM in public interest; if he chooses to not do so, who else is to be blamed?

Further, a new Section 172 added in the BNSS empowers police officers to issue directions to any person in fulfilment of their duties to maintain peace and public order, and such an order is binding on all. Anybody defying such an order may be arrested and asked by the CP to give security for peace. It is surprising that the Bengaluru CP did not issue any such direction to the RCB officials under Section 172 while denying them permission for the victory parade. This aspect has been left uncovered surreptitiously from the terms and conditions of the Commission of Enquiry (CoE).

Refusal to grant permission to hold the victory parade stands testimony that there was potential threat to peace and order by cricket fans; therefore, the police were dutybound to undertake crowd management exercise voluntarily, especially as the RCB exhortated fans to come in large numbers. The state intelligence agencies also failed to assess the number of people turning up.

It was the responsibility of the Bengaluru police to also see if the stadium could accommodate the expected crowd and, if not, take precautionary measures. The police would have been well within their rights to stop the function at Chinnaswamy Stadium for preventing human tragedy.

Generally, the police develop inertia if the wish of the political and administrative hierarchy does not match with that of their assessment of the situation. The felicitation of RCB players by the Karnataka CM and his Cabinet leaves nothing to imagination. Perhaps, this prevented the police from doing their duty.

Another main culprit is the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), which provided the stadium for the RCB event. The KSCA requires police permission before allowing such a congregation at its premises. It is yet to be established whether an approval was taken.

The owners and management of the RCB too cannot escape criminal liability for going ahead with the celebrations despite the police refusing them permission. Media reports say that some officials of the DNA Entertainment Networks, the event management company, have been arrested for the deaths. During a hearing in the high court, the company blamed the CM for inviting people to the event. It appears to have done nothing wrong in providing its professional consultancy.

Those suspended for negligence in public duty generally come out clean in due course of time. Reports of enquiries are also hardly acted upon; they gather dust and never see the light of the day. Strict liability of the police and other state instrumentalities needs to be ingrained in our administrative culture to prevent such tragedies.

KP Singh is former DGP, Haryana.

Comments