With the situation worsening in violence-hit Manipur, the state government on 4th May 2023 authorized all District Magistrates to issue “shoot at sight orders” in “extreme cases”. In this context, it is important to understand what is the meaning of a ‘shoot-at-sight’ order and what provisions of the IPC and the CrPC cover it from the IAS exam perspective. We will also discuss its usage in the ongoing Manipur violence issue.

What is a ‘Shoot-at-Sight Order’?

Shoot-at-sight is a controversial order that is used only in extremely rare circumstances. The order authorizes the police or other security forces to shoot anyone who violates the order, without any warning or attempt to arrest them. This is used only if authorities feel there is a grave public threat to peace and security and if they deem lethal force absolutely necessary.

Shoot-at-Sight in Manipur Issue: 

• The order came a day after violent clashes broke out at several places during the ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ called by the All Tribal Students’ Union of Manipur (ATSUM). 
• The march was organised in protest against the demand for inclusion of the state’s Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, following an April 19 Manipur High Court directive.
• The high court order stands at the centre of tensions between the Kukis and the Meiteis and finally escalated into violent clashes between the two communities over the past few days (May 2023). 

Also read: Kuki insurgency in Manipur

What provisions of law allow the issuance of “shoot-at-sight” orders?

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  • A “shoot-at-sight” or firing order may be passed in terms of the statutory powers relating to the arrest or prevention of offences or for disbanding unlawful assemblies under Sections 41-60 and Sections 149-152 of the CrPC, 1973.
  • Section 46 (2) of the CrPC enables the use of force in the course of arresting a person. 
  • If a person “forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest,” the provision says. 
  • Limitation: Section 46(3) places a limit on this executive power by saying that the provision does not give a right “to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.”
  • Section 144 of the CrPC enables the use of wide powers while dealing with urgent cases of “apprehended danger” or nuisance through the issuance of orders. 
• The Indian Penal Code, of 1860 (IPC): 
  • Section 81 of the IPC: It says “Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.” 
  • Section 76 exempts such acts, if done by a person “who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.” 
  • The illustration to Section 76 IPC goes so far as to say that if a soldier “fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law”, he has committed no offence.

Court Views on “shoot-at-sight” Provisions

• In the Jayantilal case, the Gujarat High Court declared the shoot-at-sight orders imposed for breaking a curfew “void”. 
  • It held that the law and order forces of the State of Gujarat have no authority to shoot at anyone for a mere breach of the curfew order.
• In the 1974 ruling, Justice SH Seth also observed that in a society that is governed by a democratic constitution and the rule of law, state or government actions will “always be controlled by law”. 
  • Adding that the right to life and personal liberty is the greatest prize of the Indian people, given to them by the Constitution, the court reiterated that the Constitution is “founded upon the will of the people and the Rule of Law”.
  • Therefore, it said that any threat issued by the executive to the life of a citizen without the authority of law must be viewed very seriously.

What was the Manipur High Court Directive?

• The Meiteis are the largest community in Manipur, making up roughly 64.6% of its population. 
• In a plea before the High Court, the Meiteis argued that they were recognised as a tribe before the 1949 merger of the princely state of Manipur with the Union of India. 
• Owing to a loss of their identity as a tribe in the aftermath of the merger, the demand for ST status was felt within the community to “save the ancestral land, tradition, culture, and language” of the Meiteis. 
• Thus, the Meiteis sought inclusion in the ST list on account of the community being “victimised without any constitutional safeguards to date”.
• On April 19, the Manipur High Court observed that the issue had not been decided due to the state government’s negligence in not sending a recommendation to the Centre for the inclusion of the Meitei community in the ST list to date. 
• Directing the Manipur government to consider the case of the Meiteis’ inclusion in the ST list “expeditiously” within four weeks, the court disposed of the case.
• This resulted in opposition from the existing tribes within Manipur on the grounds that the Meiteis were already dominant in terms of both population and political representation, adding that their Manipuri language finds a place in the Eighth Schedule. 
• Also, sections of the predominantly Hindu Meiteis are already classified under the SC or OBC groups and consequently, have access to opportunities associated with the status.

Concerns with “shoot-at-sight” provisions

These orders authorize the use of lethal force against anyone who violates the curfew or engages in acts of arson, looting, or vandalism. While these orders may seem necessary to restore law and order, they also raise serious human rights and legal concerns.

• Counterproductive and ineffective in addressing the root causes of violence and unrest
  • The root causes of violence and unrest are often complex and multifaceted, involving social, economic, political, and historical factors.
  • They cannot be solved by brute force alone, but require dialogue, reconciliation, and justice.
  • ‘Shoot at sight’ orders only escalate the situation and fuel more resentment, anger, and violence among the affected communities.
  • They also erode public trust and confidence in the security forces and the government.
• Undermine the rule of law and due process
  • The rule of law means that everyone is equal before the law and subject to its fair and impartial administration.
  • Due process means that everyone has the right to a fair trial and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
  • ‘Shoot at sight’ orders bypass these safeguards and grant the security forces a license to kill without any accountability or oversight.
  • They also create a climate of fear and intimidation that discourages people from exercising their rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and movement.
• Violate the right to life and the principle of proportionality
  • The right to life is a fundamental human right that is protected by the Indian Constitution and international law.
  • It can only be restricted in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is an imminent threat to life or public safety.
  • The principle of proportionality requires that any use of force must be necessary, reasonable, and proportionate to the threat posed.
  • ‘Shoot at sight’ orders do not meet these criteria, as they allow for indiscriminate and excessive use of force against anyone who is suspected of breaking the law, regardless of the nature or gravity of their offence.

Conclusion:

• ‘Shoot at sight’ orders are an exceptional and drastic measure that should be used only as a last resort when all other means of restoring peace have failed. They are not a solution to the underlying causes of violence or conflict, but only a temporary measure to prevent further escalation.
• The authorities have to ensure that such orders are not misused or abused and that they respect the rights and dignity of all people.

Shoot-at-Sight Orders:- Download PDF Here