Fall – Out of the Shillong Jail Break

Two months have passed since the sensational Shillong jail break on May 31 last and people are still following the developments and the fall – out of the incident which has totally exposed the inefficiency of the jail staff while at the same time reflecting the government’s apathy and unconcerned attitude regarding the security conditions of jails, not only in Shillong

but also in other parts of the state. However, the occurrence has badly shaken up and also woken up the government.  The Steering Committee Against Murder of Democracy has become a watch dog in seeing that the truth of the whole episode comes to light, to fix responsibilities upon those who have erred in their duties and also those involved, who have been master minding the whole affair from behind the scenes. Firstly, the Guwahati High Court had rejected the petition filed by the Congress member of the Jaintia Hills Mr. Nongtdu who had challenged the re – opening of the case to add some more charges of offence to it.

Earlier, during his arrest on June 5th the CJM had discharged Nongtdu from the case. However, public pressure and awareness did not allow things to be taken lightly. The State Government had appointed a judge of the Guwahati High Court, Justice D. Biswas to head the judicial enquiry and had stated that the report on the enquiry should be made available within a period of six months. The enquiry would dwell upon relevant terms of reference to ascertain the circumstances leading to the jail break, the death of the under – trial prisoner Fullmoon Dhar, whether he died in a shoot – out with the police or was killed in a fake encounter. The Government had at the same time assured that if the report of the enquiry was found not to be satisfactory, the government would seek the help of the Criminal Bureau of Investigation 

In the midst of the developments in the case, the Steering Committee Against Murder of Democracy had been pressing the government to remove the Director General of Police and even announced various aggitational measures. The government had however clarified that at present, no action could be taken against the DGP Anil Pradhan as it would be an infringement of the Model Code of Conduct connected with the bye – elections of the Laitumkhrah constituency of the State Legislative Assembly especially since the Election Commission had announced that it would ensure that there is no disturbance to the ensuing bye – election. In the meantime, the government had imposed Section 144CrPC, following the agitation threat of the SCAMOD which did not carry out the intended agitation but chose to wait and watch, possibly till the Laitumkhrah constituency bye – polls are over.

However, in a fresh and interesting turn of events, the former DGP Kulbir Krishan had lodged a complaint to the state Chief Secretary Rajan Chatterjee, protesting that he was unceremoniously removed from his post upon the appointment of Anil Pradhan as the DGP. Further, Kulbir Krishan expressed that his removal and the appointment of the new DGP is a flouting of all procedures, especially since Anil Pradhan is an officer who is junior to him. Prior to the elevation to the post of DGP, Anil Pradhan was additional DGP in charge of prisons.

The displacing of Kulbir Krishan came in the wake of the present Congress led government coming to power. An order was issued from the state Home Department in which the Chief Minister Dr. D.D. Lapang is holding the home portfolio, on the 17th of May 2009 without citing any reasons. Yet the question is whether the contention of seniority applies to this case as Krishan is an IPS officer of the 1976 batch while Pradhan is from the 1977 batch.

Kulbir Krishan supported his contention by citing a Supreme Court ruling in the Prakash Singh versus Union of India case, that an official appointed as DGP should have a fixed tenure of a minimum of two years which was not followed by the state government. Kulbir Krishan therefore pointed out that his appointment as DGP prisons after his removal as DGP was against the statutory provisions and the directions of the Supreme Court. Also the rank of DGP prisons is not at par with the rank of DGP of the state. Questions therefore are being raised as to whether this switching of posts of DGP prisons and the DGP has anything to do with the jail break affair.

On the other hand, Anil Pradhan had stated that his appointment as DGP did not flout or violate any rules, arguing that the appointment of officers is the prerogative of the government. Pradhan also claimed that he was the senior most additional DGP and that there was no statutory provision about the transfer of additional DGP. It is however for the Home Department to clarify these claims and counter claims for the benefit and interest of the citizens.

At the same time, the state government is under a lot of pressure by way of the demand of SCAMOD on the question of the removal of the present DGP by looking into the reasons for this demand during this breathing time till the Laitumkhrah bye – elections are over. It will be interesting to see whether the candidates facing the Congress candidates at the polls raise this controversy as a public issue in the run up to the elections.

Whatever may be the case, it seems that the Shillong jail break incident has more chapters that are yet to unfold.