By a strange, tragic coincidence, the two most attention-grabbing recent incidents involving the police have both been connected with the legal profession.

In the Law College incident, the police have been accused of gross inaction; in the case of the High Court incident, the police is being accused of gross excess. As no one ever says that police action was just right, the police could very well be in a Hamlet-like dilemma: ‘whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the stones and arson of outrageous agitators or to take arms against a sea of agitators and by opposing disperse them!’

The cycle often starts by the police being passive or taking delayed or inadequate action in one incident leading to a public outcry of police inaction. In the next incident, apparently anxious to redeem their reputation, the police often overreact leading, this time, to a pubic outcry of police excess. Unfortunately, there is no computer software or algorithm which would indicate with mathematical precision what exactly should be done in dealing with a mob nor are policemen computer-programmable robots to act with predictable mechanical perfection.

It is dynamic situation in which very often a series of honest but subjective snap judgments have to be made and unmade by the seniormost officer on the spot. A different officer, an average citizen, a judge or a politician in his place may very well take a different view of the situation and take a different action. The situation, therefore, offers a delightful scope for the exercise of hindsight–based judgment.

The public perception of what happens to a wrong-doer is that the government and the judiciary come down heavily on individuals but are extremely hesitant, often helpless, in dealing with large groups. There is also the perception that if the person enquiring into police action is a judge, he is more likely to find fault with the police whereas, if it is an administrator, he is more likely to support the police.

In such a situation, a broad approach on how the police should deal with wrongdoers has to be agreed upon not merely for making a fair post-police-action evaluation but also to ensure that effective action is taken by the police. We can analyse two situations: one dealing with individuals, such as accused, undertrials or suspects; and (b) dealing with crowds or mobs liable to turn into, or which have already become an unlawful assembly.

In the first case, police conduct should be subjected to the strictest standards of legality, human dignity and decency and wherever feasible, transparency since an individual is often alone and helpless against a police system and the temptation to abuse official powers is great.

In the second case, some relevant considerations are outlined below. The objective of dispersing an unlawful assembly and preventing its members from committing unlawful acts should be the paramount goal.

The aggressor or provoker, be it the police or the crowd, should be an important consideration. According to the ideal principle of private defence, the defence should be just enough to ward off the offence. An extra margin of allowance should be given to this aspect while judging the reaction of the police. If the police force has to study and measure every action of a mob and fine-tune their response, it will be overrun by the mob.

While, ideally, a professional, uniformed force should show great restraint and not show personal anger against the wrong-doer, in real life this cannot always be ensured (a few policemen throwing back stones at the crowd recently has been blown up as an ‘excess’ in the editorial of a leading English daily). Why do we demand or expect better behaviour from ordinary policemen, keeping in view their socio-economic background, than from highly educated lawyers forming a mob? Instances of such petty, isolated reactions should not prejudice one against the police as long as the overall situation warrants firm action. If, however, such acts constitute serious legal violation or go well beyond the legitimate requirements of controlling the situation, the police should be taken to task.

Every situation of dealing with a mob should be videographed from start to finish. The police force should also contain women police to deal with the women members of an unlawful assembly.

In Indian culture, inaction is always penalised (if at all) less than acting in good faith and being judged as wrong. ‘Mobocracy’ is a potential side effect of any democracy. If we force the police to follow the ‘inaction syndrome’ (of which some evidence already exists), none of us will be safe from mobs.