Shravil Budkulia
Police is often considered an institution principally concerned with law enforcement and crime control. The primary objective is to safeguard justifiable moral rights which are enshrined in law. The Police is also concerned with other variety of roles which may be necessary to achieve the ultimate purpose of its existence. However, the theory of policing is neutral regarding the methodology to be used as an advocate of law enforcers and being a crime-fighting agency or other service roles of the Police. The phrase ‘quest for peace by peaceful means’ remains a unique trait of modern civilization; on the contrary, the term ‘lawful’ use of force by the Police is referred to as the means of dealing with contemporary scenarios. There are legitimized reasons to use force enshrined under the law’s ambit, such as self-defense. The other is the use of force provided as immunity to some deputized persons against some named persons. The last is the legitimized use of force to institute a Police force, which stands unrestricted compared to the other two presented legitimate methods of force. The measures to curb the crimes and mere apprehension of the criminals are often related to the use of force but not under the ambit of law. A major section of the available manpower resources of the police are devoted to deal with crime and criminals whereas the other activities such as supervision, traffic control, emergency health aides or other issues to be managed by the institution requires more energy and resources which often gets neglected. Determining the precise nature and extent of autonomy of Police working is extremely difficult to distinguish. The advanced definition of the functions of the police as referred earlier, keeps crime control as its priority, beyond any other relevant obligations, the medium used to carry out these ostensible primary functions is none other than coercive actions or justified force. At times, conflicting aims come with enforcing the law and maintaining order, although the former is a prerequisite for the latter to persist.
Law and Order are trusted to serve the common masses and eradicate the menace prevalent in society; however, both the elements of ‘Law and Order’ in this term are complimentary to each other and co-exist, yet the goals of Law and the goals of Order are different. There is a dilemma among the authorities, either to rely upon Law to maintain Order and follow the procedural urge or to go beyond the limits of Law and take cognizance through a retributive mechanism that the citizens glamorize. It is for the masses to decide if they want to make merry of treating lawlessness with lawlessness or to be patient enough, respect the procedural structure, and believe in the justice system bestowed upon them by the Indian Constitution.
(The author is a student of law and politics at Ambedkar University, New Delhi).
