The recent decision of the government of Uttar Pradesh to initiate the process of withdrawal of cases linked to the 2013 Muzaffarnagar and Shamli communal riots is a worrisome development.

It undermines effective and neutral policing and sends a wrong message to the family members of the victims. The communal riots in Muzaffarnagar and adjoining areas had claimed more than 60 lives and over 40,000 people were displaced.

The communal carnage reaffirmed that a relatively minor incident, if not firmly dealt with in the beginning, can snowball into a communal confrontation. The riots had exposed the culpability of the political leadership and incapacity, if not pusillanimity, of the police and the district administration.

The then Chief Minister, Akhilesh Yadav, should have issued clear orders to the district administration to deal firmly with the situation and nip in the bud the efforts of interested groups to spread the communal fire.

There were reports that warned of a gathering storm. The Centre’s Intelligence agencies had warned about the looming crisis, but no firm steps were taken to douse the communal flames.

A major share of responsibility has to be borne by the police for its failure to prevent the riots in Muzaffarnagar. Admittedly, the flare-up was rooted in several factors, over which the police have no control Yet the riots escalated on account of the failure of the police to act decisively and forestall the loss of lives and property.

To deal with communal riots, the police will have to act firmly and swiftly and nab the anti-social elements, who take advantage of the situation and indulge in loot, arson and murder.

There was no such action during the riots at Muzaffarnagar. In such situations, one thumbrule is that senior police officers must not readily accept the plea of the subordinates that anti-social elements have gone underground and could not be traced.

A research study of the cases of stabbing during communal disturbances has shown that the culprits were professional goons, and not amateurs, acting on the spur of the moment.

As often as not, the police fails to take action because the hoodlums enjoy political patronage. Senior officers have to take a firm and no-nonsense approach against any political interference in tense law and order situations.

Unfortunately, many are failing or faltering. I know the case of a Superintendent of Police, who once sought the approval of the Chief Minister, before firing at a riotous mob. In the net, the situation worsened.

It has been noticed in many states that after communal riots, the State governments have withdrawn cases against the persons charged with serious offences, on the plea of promoting communal harmony.

UP’s Law minister, Brijesh Pathak, has said that the state government is considering withdrawal of cases which are “politically motivated.” In most of these cases, the accused are charged with serious offences under the Indian Penal Code, notably murder, attempt to commit murder, and spreading communal hatred.

Section 153 (A) of the IPC penalises the offence of promoting enmity between different groups, on grounds of race and religion. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and punishable, with imprisonment up to five years.

In my long innings in the police, I have seen very few cases of rioters being punished under this deterrent section. Withdrawal of criminal cases after communal riots, serves no purpose, and only encourages anti-social elements.

The National Police Commission, in its report, has sternly deprecated this expedient measure and mentioned its undesirable consequences. It has endorsed the decision of the National Integration Council against withdrawal of such cases.

A person indulging in acts of wanton violence, in the name of religion, should not be permitted to escape the rigours of the law, only because he has influence within his own community, and is able to manipulate political support. The Law Minister of UP has said that the Government is thinking of withdrawing the cases because ‘they smacked of political vendetta.”

The previous Samajwadi Party government had set up a special investigating team to investigate the cases of communal violence. It should be left to the trial courts to decide on the truth of the matter, or otherwise, of the charges framed against the accused persons, some of whom are closely associated with the ruling party.

Withdrawal of cases will engender fear and anguish among the victims, and reflect poorly on the neutrality of the state administration. The ongoing debate on the incidence of communal riots during the previous Samajwadi Party regime and the present BJP dispensation, serves no purpose.

It is true that more destructive riots had occurred during the SP regime, but the litmus test is the prevalence of a sense of security and safety among the minority communities. By that token the Yogi Adityanath government has failed.

Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code grants the public prosecutor the leeway to withdraw from prosecution any person, either generally, or in respect of anyone, or more, of the offences for which he is tried, with the consent of the court.

Withdrawal of cases has to be authorised by the state government. But the state government is not free to exercise its authority in a whimsical and arbitrary manner, or on extraneous considerations.

Unfortunately, very often, extraneous political considerations influence decisions of the state government. But the parameters for withdrawal must withstand judicial scrutiny, and the courts should not permit withdrawal of cases filed by the public prosecutor, without rigorous scrutiny.

The Supreme Court has laid down in the case of Ramnarain Pandey v State of Bihar that the court has to satisfy itself that the executive function of the prosecution has not been improperly exercised, or it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons and purposes.

Unfortunately, there are few convictions in cases relating to communal riots . The miscreants have seldom been awarded deterrent punishment. In Uttar Pradesh, acquittal of all the accused persons in the 1987 Hasimpura massacre, in which 41 persons (all Muslims) were shot dead by the UP Armed Constabulary was a shocking miscarriage of justice.

Withdrawal of cases gives the accused persons a feeling that, with political backing, they can cock a snook at the criminal justice system. This will deepen the sense of anger and alienation of the victims, most of whom belong to the minority community.

They will tend to lose faith, not only in the forces of law and order, but in the government itself, and turn to narrow obscurantist groups and not mainstream political parties to represent their sectarian interests. And this bodes ill for the country.

The writer, Senior Fellow of the Institute of Social Sciences, had served as Director-General, National Human Rights Commission, and of the National Police Academy