Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 460 (JK)

J&K High Court Bar Association v. Union of India

2016-09-21

ALI MOHD.MAGREY, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. In the writ petition following five reliefs have been sought, namely: (a) That the respondents, their agents and servants be prohibited by a writ of prohibition from using or caused to be used 12-Bore Pellet Gun and or of any other Bore and Cartridges containing pellets as a means of crowd control against any group of people including protestors in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The use of pellet gun be totally banned as a means of crowd control. (b) That all the officers, who took the decision of using the pellet guns at the protestors and non-protestors after 8th July, 2016 and those who actually fired the pellet guns be prosecuted. Cases be directed to be registered against them for causing unlawful bodily injury, deprivation of eye sight etc. (c) That the respondents, their agents and servants be directed to compensate all those persons whose names are mentioned in the petition as well as those whose particulars will come to the notice of this Hon'ble Court during the hearing of this petition and the compensation be determined in the context of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as made applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as these persons have either been deprived of their eye sight and or have suffered bodily injury, trauma, agony, mental pain etc. (d) That the Director SLIMS, Soura, Srinagar, Principal, SKIMS Medical College Bemina, Director Health Services Kashmir and the Medical Superintendent S.M.H.S. Hospital be directed to furnish to this Hon'ble Court details of all those persons who reported in the SKIMS, Hospitals, District Hospitals, Sub District Hospitals, Primary Health Centres for treatment on account of pellet injury and the treatment provided to them. (e) That the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary be directed to furnish report to this Hon'ble Court as to the circumstances and the time decision to refer pellet injury patients outside the State was taken. The respondents be also directed to bring competent and well trained surgeons from outside the State so as to provide treatment to those, who are not willing to go outside for treatment or have no means for meeting the expenses of such treatment inside or outside the State. The Court may also determine negligence, if any, caused by any authority of the State in dealing with pellet injury patients. The Court may also determine negligence, if any, caused by any authority of the State in dealing with pellet injury patients. This matter was heard and reserved for orders on 06.09.2016. On that date Mr. S.A. Makroo, learned ASGI, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 4 stated that he will circulate the Expert Committee's report shortly and his statement was recorded in our order dated 06.09.2016. We have waited for the said report till date but the Committee's Report has not been circulated, therefore, we are inclined to decide the matter without further waiting for the said report. 2. As the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respective counsels for the respondents addressed arguments on the first two prayers alone, this order is restricted to above prayers, namely, prayers (a) and (b) and the rest of the prayers will be considered at a later stage. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner in the affidavit that due to the incident that occurred on 8th of July, 2016, more than 4000 people have been injured, more than 50 persons have been killed and more than 100 have been blinded. The entire Kashmir Valley is faced with curfew/restrictions. It is alleged that people who were peacefully protesting, have been deprived of their right to protest peacefully or to mourn over the death of those who have been killed. The free use of Pellet Gun against the people has resulted in injuries to 4000 people apart from blinding many persons including children and women. It is alleged that some people watching clashes amongst protestors and security forces have suffered pellet injuries. It is claimed in the petition that Pellet Gun is having the lethal effect and the mandatory provisions as prescribed under Section 127 to 131 Cr.P.C. are not being followed while using pellet guns. The choice of the weapon used by the State while dealing with unarmed protestors is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The authorities cannot have any discretion to cause harm/injury to any of the protestors. The Standard Operating Procedures as followed in other States, namely, use of 'Lathi', 'water cannons, rubber bullets and such other methods which do not cause harm to the body or injury should be followed before using fire arms. The authorities cannot use force disproportionate to what is necessary for dispersing crowd of protestors. The Standard Operating Procedures as followed in other States, namely, use of 'Lathi', 'water cannons, rubber bullets and such other methods which do not cause harm to the body or injury should be followed before using fire arms. The authorities cannot use force disproportionate to what is necessary for dispersing crowd of protestors. A list of persons alleged to have sustained injuries on their eyes, who were admitted in hospital, is also mentioned. It is alleged that the State hospitals are over crowded with patients who have suffered with pellet injuries and four patients have been taken to hospitals outside the Valley. 4. It is further stated that the contention of the State that pellet gun is a non-lethal weapon because it does not take away the life, is a misnomer. The distinction claimed by the State between Pellet Gun and fire arm is artificial, therefore, the Pellet Gun has to be treated as lethal weapon and the use of which has to be banned. It is claimed that the earlier writ petition decided by the Division Bench and reported in B.A. Misri v. State of J & K & Ors.: JKJ Soft JKJ/28364 : 2013 (4) JKJ 157 [HC] did not decide the said issue specifically and the writ petition was disposed of with regard to issue of maintainability and the expert opinion relied on related to oleoresin grenades and not pellets and there is no impediment to entertain the writ petition and pass suitable orders. 5. Having regard to the fact that Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs by official Memorandum dated 26.07.2016 constituted an Expert Committee for exploring other alternatives to Pellet Guns, this Court sought response from the respondents with regard to the prayers made by the petitioner. 6. Pursuant to the said response sought, the Director General of Police J & K has filed reply on behalf of himself, and for respondent 15 to 23, where preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition is raised in view of the Division Bench judgment reported in 2013 (4) JKJ 157 [HC]. It is stated that handling of law and order situation is the constitutional and legal duty of the State. What method is required to give effect in order to control law and order has to be left to the State. It is stated that handling of law and order situation is the constitutional and legal duty of the State. What method is required to give effect in order to control law and order has to be left to the State. Even non-violent protest march is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of the Nation. The matter is seized of by the Expert Committee to explore other alternates to the Pellet Guns as non-lethal weapon and the said Expert Committee is yet to submit its report and at this stage the writ petition is premature. It is further stated that the pellet gun is a modern method to deal with crowd control particularly agitating mobs who resort to heavy stone pelting, rioting, arson at the instigation of militants and separatists with intention of causing loss to life of police personnel and security forces besides the public and private property. The pellet gun (12 Bore Pump Action Gun) is sparingly used when all other modes of crowd control i.e. tear gas, oleoresin grenades, stun grenades fail to yield any desired results. The police is presently using Shot No. 9, which is smallest in size to deal with violent protestors and agitating unruly mobs. It is further stated that pellet guns are not being used against any peaceful protestors. After 8th of July, 2016 the entire Valley was rocked by unpleasant events in which so many people resorted to violent agitations and attempted to cause loss to the life of police/security personnel besides causing enormous damage to the public and private property. Many government buildings, including police stations were burnt, arms/ammunition was looted and in one such incident a police vehicle along with the driver was thrown in a river which led to the death of the driver. The security forces and police while exercising maximum restraint had to use force for their self defence and in the process members of the agitating mob in the crowd sustain injuries. 7. It is stated that more than 3777 police and security personnel have sustained injuries till 30th August, 2016 during the attacks on them by unruly crowds by using stones, sharp edged weapons and petrol bombs. 7. It is stated that more than 3777 police and security personnel have sustained injuries till 30th August, 2016 during the attacks on them by unruly crowds by using stones, sharp edged weapons and petrol bombs. The mobs are also used as shield by the militants to fire upon security forces/police personnel to cause maximum damage to the police which has been engaged in the task of maintenance of peace and law and order. From 8th July, 2016 to 30th August, 2016 a total of 1522 incidents of violence have been reported across the Kashmir Valley which has resulted in loss of 58 lives including two police personnel. Two court buildings, 164 ambulances and 51 other establishments have been damaged. As many as 1431 FIRs have been registered, 813 persons accused of commission of various offences under these FIRs have been arrested and 409 such persons have been detained or bound down by taking bonds under Cr.P.C. The pellet guns are used sparingly and rarely when all other means and methods of controlling the agitating mob, like teargas, stun grenades etc. fail. It is stated that proper drill is followed for use of pellet gun and it is ensured that pellet guns are fired as and when required below the waist line so as to cause minimum damage to the members of the agitating mob and violent protestors. However, protestors and members of agitating mob are mostly bent or in kneeling position so as to pick up the stones which they hurl and pelt upon the police personnel and in this position there is every chance that such protestors would be hit above the waist line. It is also stated that police is using proportionate force, an established means to control the crowds, however, when these means fail to yield the desired results, as a last resort before resorting to firing from the rifles, 12 Bore Pump Action gun is used which is far less lethal than the regular rifles. It is further stated that by use of pellet guns in self defence, the injuries are mostly non-lethal as 12 Bore Pump Action gun is a far less lethal weapon than other regular rifles, like, 303, AK-47, INSAS etc. Though the pellet gun is better means for tackling law and order problems an Expert Committee appointed by the central Government is seized of the issue for suggesting alternatives, if any. Though the pellet gun is better means for tackling law and order problems an Expert Committee appointed by the central Government is seized of the issue for suggesting alternatives, if any. 8. The Standard Operative Procedures (SOP) which gives detailed procedures as to when and how to use the force for purpose of crowd control/dispersal of agitating mob for maintenance of law and order, protecting the property of the public and establishing peace has been circulated on 25.10.2010 by Police Head Quarters and Zonal Police Head Quarters. The SOP prescribe the use of proportionate force to deal with agitating unruly mobs. The SOP makes a mention of use of fire arms which include 12 Bore Pump Action Gun as well. The SOP is being followed in its totality while dealing with the protestors/agitating mobs in the Valley. The use of 12 Bore weapons is exceptional for self defence with the consent of Central Government. It is stated that maintenance of law and order and establishment of peace is the prime concern of the Government and for the said purpose, use of proportionate force is permitted by law. It is also stated that the details of the injured persons given in the writ petition need to be verified as they are mostly members of unruly mobs and when injured they do not report to the police stations and it is premature to allege that persons who have been hit by pellets have been deprived of their eye sight for all the times to come. It is stated that use of pellet guns as means of controlling crowd is a fair and reasonable procedure as it inflict minimum damage even to the members of unlawful agitating mobs. Ultimately it is prayed to reject the prayer made prohibiting use of pellet gun by the State. 9. The respondent Nos. 1 and 4 has also filed detailed objections. Apart from questioning the maintainability of the writ petition, it is stated that for controlling the riots which are happening, the Security Forces are forced to use the Pellet Guns to minimize the death of the protestors. 9. The respondent Nos. 1 and 4 has also filed detailed objections. Apart from questioning the maintainability of the writ petition, it is stated that for controlling the riots which are happening, the Security Forces are forced to use the Pellet Guns to minimize the death of the protestors. It is also stated therein that from July 08, 2016 till 11.08.2016, 3091 Personnel of J & K Police and 1775 of CRPF Personnel, serving in Kashmir Valley have sustained injuries while enforcing law and order apart from two Personnel of J & K have also got martyred in the mob violence. It is further stated that by use of Pellet Guns, the Pellets follow a definite path and contrary to fire from a Rifled Weapon do not remain together for a single point of impact but get spread out with distance and or designed to hit more than one protester in a non-fatal fashion. It is also stated that some of these pellets have happened to hit protesters in eyes which is unfortunate. It is also stated that Director General of CRPF has already issued instructions for restraint except in extreme situations the use of pellet guns. It is further stated that in the incidences from 08.07.2016, 44 attacks by petrol bombs, kerosene bombs and acid bottles were made. As the members of the mob are armed with stones, acid, petrol bombs and even grenades, resorting to lathi charge is sometimes not advisable. The CRPF personnel resort to tear gas, rubber bullets and plastic pellets before resorting to use of pellet guns depending upon the situation. It is not always possible follow a strict sequence of force because of dynamic and sudden nature of the situations. It is also stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, taking note of the injuries sustained due to pellet gun shots has constituted a Committee by official Memorandum dated 26.07.2016 consisting of seven members of the Expert Committee and the Committee has been requested to submit its report within two months and depending upon the said report further action could be taken. 10. Respondent No. 5 has filed his objections stating that Border Security Force (BSF) is not using pellet guns and it has been impleaded un-necessarily in the writ petition. 11. Mr. 10. Respondent No. 5 has filed his objections stating that Border Security Force (BSF) is not using pellet guns and it has been impleaded un-necessarily in the writ petition. 11. Mr. Jehangir Iqbal Ganai, the learned Advocate General raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the decision reported in 2013 (4) JKJ 157 [HC] rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. He also relied on a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1962 SC 1166 (Kameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.) particularly para 13 of the said judgment. His submission is that force is used only if the protestors become violent. He has also raised the plea of procedural violation in filing the writ petition stating that even though the President of the Bar Association was authorized to file the writ petition, which is stated in para 11 of the petition, the Executive Committee Member has filed the writ petition. He has relied on the objections filed by the Director General of Police and contended that in extreme conditions and that too in order to protect the property of the State and for self defence the pellet guns are used which is a non-lethal weapon. He has also argued that there is no material to come to the conclusion that any person who sustained injury on their eye has lost the eye sight in total. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the State is also not very much interested in using the pellet guns but only while dealing the situation which goes beyond control, rarely the pellet guns are being used which is causing minimum injuries and if the same is prohibited, by use of fire arms more persons will die which the State want to avoid. He also argued that if excessive force is used action will be taken against such persons. 12. Mr. S.A. Makroo, learned ASGI, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 4 argued that even a review petition was filed to review the earlier Division Bench order cited supra, which was also dismissed by this Court on 13.05.2015 and in OWP No. 19/2011 a similar prayer was rejected by this Court on 08.09.2015. 12. Mr. S.A. Makroo, learned ASGI, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 4 argued that even a review petition was filed to review the earlier Division Bench order cited supra, which was also dismissed by this Court on 13.05.2015 and in OWP No. 19/2011 a similar prayer was rejected by this Court on 08.09.2015. He also submitted that Expert Committee is seized of the matter and a decision has not been taken as on date and only after the submission of Expert Committee recommendations/findings, further action could be taken. He also argued that even if any compensation is payable to any of the family of the deceased or injured persons, the same can be paid only by the State Government and not by the Central Government and the said issue was already decided by a Division Bench of Court in the decision reported in 2015 (4) JKJ 260 [HC] (State v. Sonaullah Dar & Ors. JKJ Soft JKJ/29913). 13. Mr. Z.A. Shah, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the earlier writ petition the issue of use of pellet gun was not decided. He further submitted that merely because the police personnel and security personnel are vested with the power to maintain law and order, they are not immune from any action and in the earlier writ petition, only the prayer of pepper gas was decided based on the expert committee opinion and use of pellet gun has not been decided even in the earlier review petition. He also argued that peaceful demonstration is permissible and even if the crowd becomes violent, for dispersing the crowd the provisions of Cr.P.C. particularly Sections 127, 128 and 129 are to be strictly followed. He further submitted that SOP framed by the State must be in tune with Section 128 Cr.P.C. and the police can use force subject to statutory provisions. Learned senior counsel also relied on the very same decision as relied by the learned Advocate General i.e. AIR 1962 SC 1166 and in particular para No. 20 and submitted that the Rule prohibiting demonstration was set aside by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. He ultimately prayed for prohibiting the use of pellet gun, considering the large number of persons sustaining injuries and the fact that some of them may become blind. 14. Mr. He ultimately prayed for prohibiting the use of pellet gun, considering the large number of persons sustaining injuries and the fact that some of them may become blind. 14. Mr. M.A. Qayoom, learned counsel also made submissions supporting the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel Mr. Z.A. Shah. He submitted that as a Bar Association it has got every locus standi to maintain the writ petition when large number of persons are effected by use of pellet gun and the procedural violation, namely, filing of writ petition by the Executive Committee member instead of President, cannot be a ground to dismiss the writ petition. He also relied on a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 (State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors). He relied on news paper reports showing large number of persons suffering bodily injuries including eye totaling about 7000 including security personnel. Hence there is an urgency to press the prayers (a) and (b) in the writ petition. 15. In reply to the said submissions, Mr. S.A. Makroo, learned ASGI cited a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2016 (7) SCALE 725 (Anita Thakur and Ors. v. Government of J & K and Ors.), which case arose from the order of this Court wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has decided a similar issue and prayed for dismissing the above said prayers. 16. We have considered the respective submissions and gone through the pleadings. 17. Though maintainability of the writ petition is raised as a preliminary issue, since the merits of the issues raised with respect to said prayers having been argued, we are of the view that the decision can be rendered on merits. 18. It is not in dispute that from 08.07.2016 many parts of the valley are facing law and order problems for one reason or the other. Almost every day, on the guise of protests, the Security Personnel, their Camps and Police Stations are targeted by unruly crowds. The State Government has passed orders u/s. 144 Cr. PC restricting the movement of public and vehicles. The Educational Institutions are closed for about ten weeks which is affecting the future of students. There is shut down due to various reasons and the situation has not improved as on date. The State Government has passed orders u/s. 144 Cr. PC restricting the movement of public and vehicles. The Educational Institutions are closed for about ten weeks which is affecting the future of students. There is shut down due to various reasons and the situation has not improved as on date. It is true that so many persons were injured due to use of Pellet Guns or by use of force, some of them seriously. It is also true that because of use of Pellet Guns even though more protests become violent the loss of life is less, as stated in the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The petitioner is claiming that there is Human Rights Violation. If the protest is not peaceful and the Security persons are attacked by a huge and violent mob they have to necessarily use force as their self defence and for protecting public property. For dispersal of mob and maintenance of law and order detailed instructions are issued to the law enforcing agencies in the name of Standard Operation Procedure (SOF). The same was issued in terms of Section 127 to 132 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 24, 32 and 33 of the J & K Police Act. 19. Whether in a particular situation or place the use of force is excessive or not can be ascertained only after investigation and finding rendered by some authority/Court factually. 20. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2016 (7) SCALE 725 (Anita Thakur and Ors. v. Government of J & K and Ors.) (judgment dated 12.08.2016) pointed out the present situation in Kashmir in the following manner in para 12, which reads thus:- "12........... Recent happenings show an unfortunate trend where such demonstrations and protests are on increase. .......In Kashmir itself there have been numerous instances where separatist groups have provoked violence. In this scenario, task of the police and law enforcing agencies becomes more difficult and delicate. In curbing such violence or dispersing unlawful assemblies, police has to accomplish its task with utmost care, deftness and precision." 21. Thus, it is manifest that so long as there is violence by unruly mobs, use of force is inevitable. In this scenario, task of the police and law enforcing agencies becomes more difficult and delicate. In curbing such violence or dispersing unlawful assemblies, police has to accomplish its task with utmost care, deftness and precision." 21. Thus, it is manifest that so long as there is violence by unruly mobs, use of force is inevitable. What kind of force has to be used at the relevant point of time or in a given situation/place, has to be decided by the persons Incharge of the place where the attack is happening. This Court in the writ jurisdiction without any finding rendered by the competent forum/authority cannot decide as to whether the use of force in particular incident is excessive or not. Having regard to the ground situation prevailing as of now and the fact that Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs has already constituted a Committee of Experts through its Memorandum dated 26.07.2016 for exploring other alternative to Pellet Guns, before filing the report by the Expert Committee and a decision taken at the Government level, we are not inclined to prohibit the use of pellet guns in rare and extreme situations. 22. With regard to the contention about non-adherence of SOP, it has to be noticed that the Director General of Police on 25.10.2010 issued the SOP which was circulated amongst the lower formations with direction to adhere to the guidelines in letter and spirit. The said SOP was framed under Section 127 to 132 Cr.P.C. read with Section 24, 32 and 33 of the J & K Police Act. Clause A to T of the SOP reads thus:- "A. The Police must secure the presence of an Executive Magistrate nominated for the purpose by the State Administration as far as possible where a breach of the peace necessitating the use of force is anticipated. The Executive Magistrate on suo-moto information or requisition by police should be present at the spot. B. When a Magistrate is present at the spot he should be in complete charge of the situation. He has the necessary legal powers to order any Police Officer to assist him in handling the situation. C. The senior most police officer present in bound to assist the Magistrate by mobilizing the available police force and utilizing them as best as possible. He has the necessary legal powers to order any Police Officer to assist him in handling the situation. C. The senior most police officer present in bound to assist the Magistrate by mobilizing the available police force and utilizing them as best as possible. Following the orders of Magistrate or the Officer I/C of the police station or senior officer present on the spot, the Police may use minimum civil force as is necessary to disperse the mob by resorting to Lathi Charge, Water Canons and tear smoke shells and non-lethal weapons. D. If the crowd becomes defiant and the use of teargas, Lathi charge etc is found insufficient and inexpedient ro disperse the mob, use of firearms may be resorted to. The Magistrate is responsible for taking a decision as to when an unlawful assembly has to be dispersed by force and also the kind of force to be used. E. After such a decision is taken, the officer-in-charge of the police is solely responsible for deciding the exact amount of force to be used, the manner of using it and the setting of the details of the operations connected with the use of force, all the time keeping in mind the principle that no more force than necessary should be used. F. Deployment for dispersal of mob should, as far as practicable, be made section wise. When a police party is formed for dispersing an unlawful assembly, it should be numbered and split off into two or more sections, if the size of the party and the time available permits to do so. Each section should be under the charge of an officer preferably of and above the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. G. All commands to the police are to be given by the officer in command of the party. The police should not open fire except by the orders of the Magistrate and in case of non-availability of the Magistrate, by the word of command of the officer-in-Charge, who shall exercise an extreme caution and discretion regarding the extent and the line of fire & effort has to be to direct it below the knees of the target. The police should not open fire except by the orders of the Magistrate and in case of non-availability of the Magistrate, by the word of command of the officer-in-Charge, who shall exercise an extreme caution and discretion regarding the extent and the line of fire & effort has to be to direct it below the knees of the target. H. As soon as it becomes necessary to resort to the use of fire arms with reference to clause (D) above, the officer in command of the party will bring the men to the loading position and give the order to load the ammunition. This will prevent panic in loading at the last movement when actual fire order is given. I. Officers Commanding/police parties will, on every occasion when employed in the suppression of a riot or enforcement of law, ensure that the fullest warning is, if feasible, given to the mob in a clear and distinct manner before any order is given to use tear gas of lathies or fire arms. They will use the most effectual means to explain before hand to the unruly mob that in the event of the police party being forced to open fire, the fire will be effective to injure/immobilize the target. Whenever firing is resorted to, directions and warnings to the mob should be announced through loudspeakers and where such arrangements cannot be made hand megaphones should be kept ready for announcement. J. Even after being warned, if the mob does not disperse, the order to file may be given, by the Magistrate or in his absence by the senior officer of the police, as the case may be, If the Magistrate or officer in command of the party, as the case may be, is of the opinion that it will suffice if orders to only one or two persons be given, he may accordingly order specifying the persons that are to open fire. If, however, he considers that it will be insufficient, he will give the word of command to one or more sections to open fire. The fire order of each section will be given, by the regular word of command by the officer-in-charge of the party. Firing should be well controlled and officers ordering firing should always indicate the number of rounds that should be fired at any particular time. The fire order of each section will be given, by the regular word of command by the officer-in-charge of the party. Firing should be well controlled and officers ordering firing should always indicate the number of rounds that should be fired at any particular time. The officer will also specify the person from the section who is to open fire. K. Where the situation warrants firing over the heads of the crowd and where it is considered likely to be effective in dispersing the violent and unruly mob, such firing should be resorted to only with blank ammunition. Other policemen should be kept ready with rifles loaded with live ammunition so that if the use of blank ammunition fails, the police would not be taken by surprise or overwhelmed. Firing with live ammunition should be directed against the threatening part of the crowd, the aim being kept low on legs to avoid hitting the vital organs. Firing should cease the moment it is no longer necessary. L. Files or sections ordered to fire shall remain in alert position and continue to file single shots with proper gaps, as the situation demands, instead of rapid fire without further word of command until the order to cease firing is made finally. M. Firing should be ceased the moment the rioters show signs of dispersing and all help should immediately be rendered to shift the wounded to the hospital. N. Police officials carrying weapons should never be brought so close to a large and dangerous mob as to risk their being overwhelmed by numbers or being forced into action resulting in infliction of heavy causalities. Firing should be carried out from a distance sufficient to obviate the risk of being rushed on and to enable strict fire control. O. A police officer below the rank of Station House Officer has no power to disperse such an assembly himself, but he may arrest any person without warrant for being a member of an unlawful assembly. He may also use the right of private defence as envisaged under law. O. A police officer below the rank of Station House Officer has no power to disperse such an assembly himself, but he may arrest any person without warrant for being a member of an unlawful assembly. He may also use the right of private defence as envisaged under law. P. Riot flags and display banners, as far as possible, should be taken when police men are called out in apprehension of disturbances and before firing or any other means of dispersal is resorted to, they should be hoisted in front of the mob in a manner so as to enable that what is written on them is clearly visible and can be read or clearly understood by the mob. Q. The police used for dispersing mobs should wear the prescribed uniforms and the protective/anti-riot body gear. R. Superintendents of Police should ensure that Sub-Divisional Officers and Station House Officers organize demonstrations of mob dispersal by the District Armed Reserve from time to time during their visits to the District Headquarters. Such demonstrations should invariably be given when meetings of Inspectors are held. S. While dealing with unlawful assemblies care should be taken to ensure that public property and vital installations existing in the affected area are safeguarded to avoid possible damage at the hands of the unruly mob. T. The senior officers of the Police entrusted with the duty of maintenance of law and order should give proper briefing to the men intended to be deployed for the task and on the return of the deployment a debriefing session should be held to assess the performance of the deployment and identify loopholes or lapses, if any, and issue necessary instructions to avoid the repetition of such lapses in future." 23. In the concluding part of the SOP the right to private defence is also given to the Police officials/Security personnel, which reads thus:- "Right of Private defence: In the matter of dispersal of unlawful assembly the right of private defence can be exercised by the police officials to protect the life and property of public or to protect themselves. This right can be exercised by using force as much as is necessary and so long as it is necessary. This right extends even to the causing of death in certain cases as laid down in section 100 IPC as against body and in Section 103 IPC as against property. This right can be exercised by using force as much as is necessary and so long as it is necessary. This right extends even to the causing of death in certain cases as laid down in section 100 IPC as against body and in Section 103 IPC as against property. The police should exercise this right extremely cautiously. Any amount of force exceeding the right may make them liable for penal action as per law. Therefore, the police officers must make a judicious use of this right, only in dire need to save the life and property, when occasion arises as shown in sections 100 and 103 IPC." 24. The contention of the petitioner that SOP has not been followed while handling the dispersal of mob and maintenance of law and order, cannot be decided in the writ petition as the Director General of Police in his reply has specifically stated that the guidelines stated in the SOP are being strictly followed. Thus there is dispute regarding following or non-following of guidelines issued in the SOP. Whether at a particular place the guidelines issued in the SOP are being followed or not, can be individually decided and as in general no one can be in a position to give a finding. Thus the submission made by the learned Advocate General as well as the statement made by the Director General Police in the objections filed, stating that guidelines issued in the SOP are being followed, is recorded. 25. In such circumstances we are not inclined to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition with regard to prayers (a) and the said prayer is rejected. 26. Insofar as prayer (b) is concerned, the same cannot be considered in this writ petition as no findings of use of excessive force, violating the guidelines issued in the SOP, have been recorded by any fact finding authority, as stated supra. Hence the persons alleging use of excessive force, due to which death or injury has occurred, can very well approach the appropriate forum to establish the same and seek redressal. 27. It is, however, made clear that the pendency of the writ petition with regard to other prayers will not be a bar for the State Government for paying compensation to the deserving family members of the deceased persons or to the injured persons as it may deem fit and proper. 28. 27. It is, however, made clear that the pendency of the writ petition with regard to other prayers will not be a bar for the State Government for paying compensation to the deserving family members of the deceased persons or to the injured persons as it may deem fit and proper. 28. The concerned respondents are directed to ensure that all injured persons are extended adequate medical treatment for whatever injury they sustain and provide all possible required medical treatment to the injured by specialists and if specialists are not available in the State, appropriate arrangement has to be made to treat the patients by inviting specialists in the State or to shift the patients to hospitals outside the State wherever specialists are available. 29. Insofar as the other reliefs sought for is the writ petition are concerned, for considering the said relief the writ petition is admitted to hearing and respondent Nos. 3 and 15 to 23 are directed to file detailed counter affidavit by the end of November, 2016. The petitioner may file rejoinder by the end of December, 2016. List the matter for consideration after winter vacation.