The senior IPS officer should not have arrested the journalists around midnight when he himself was not sure that the provisions of the Act could be invoked to arrest them. His experience should have taught him to err on the side of caution.

Although the AP chief minister maintains that his government had no role in the arrest of the journalists, ground reality suggests that the sleuths were desperate to register a case against the journalists. The West Zone DCP C Ravi Varma, when grilled by mediapersons, read out Section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (under which the journalists were arrested) and admitted that the said Act was not clear on whether the person (complainant) should be personally present while his effigy was being burnt and thrashed with footwear. But the police presumed that the person (in this case, the MRPS leader Manda Krishna Madiga) need not be present at the time since the photographs (of the effigy being thrashed with footwear and abused) were with them. The nervous Varma said that it was for the court to decide on it.


Since by his own admission the legislation was vague, how could the police arrest the editor and the two contributors of the story? He defended himself rather weakly by stating that the police took legal opinion and it was established prima facie that the three persons were liable for arrest. Police action flowed from the complaint filed on June 4, by Krishna Madiga (who was not present when his effigy was burnt) that about 100 protestors led by ‘Andhra Jyothi’ management had burnt his effigy, abused and thrashed it with footwear. He said the Banjara Hills ACP examined 13 persons and there was evidence in the form of photographs that the three arrested persons were present there. The probe was going on and the police had just followed the law.

But surely the police could have made things easier for themselves by arresting the journalists during the day. The senior police officer’s reply to this remark was that the discretion was left to the police. But he should realise that arresting the journalists around midnight was unwarranted, particularly when he himself was not sure that the provisions of the Act could be invoked to arrest them. His experience should have taught him to err on the side of caution. And the journalists were not armed, hardcore criminals, who might attempt to kill whoever tried to arrest them. Arresting them during the day would have ensured some transparency and made it easier for the police and the government to defend their case. In the circumstances, the senior IPS officer parrying the query by brashly replying that it was the discretion of the police only betrays his immaturity. I wonder whether he would give the same reply to the judge if queried. After all, when the effigy was being burnt, policemen were present. They could have prevented the protestors from burning the effigy. Why did they not do so? Again, the police officer tried to defend himself by stating that only a couple of cops were present. But surely, they could have called for reinforcements?