§ 7. Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India if he will inform the House of the result of the inquiry instituted by the Government into the beating by the police of Mr. Subba Rao and Mr. Ramaswami who had been picketing in the Rattan bazaar in Madras last March?
§ Sir S. HOAREI am circulating the statement issued by the Government of Madras.
§ Following is the statement:
§ Government have examined the record of inquiry held by the Commissioner of Police, Madras, into an allegation of use of excessive force in the dispersal of an unlawful assembly in Madras City on the 25th February, 1932, when two persons, 1567 named O. P. Ramaswami and K. Subba Rao received injuries. Including these two persons, the Commissioner examined in all 27 witnesses, of whom 17 are non-officials. It appears from the evidence that the picketers had collected a crowd which numbered about 200 by the time the police arrived, that this crowd was obstructing traffic and that many of its members were noisy and excited. Government are therefore satisfied that the inspector who was in charge of the police party, consisting of two sergeants and three constables, was justified in ordering the crowd to disperse as being an assembly likely to disturb public tranquillity and in dispersing, by force, those members of the crowd who did not move away and had shown a disposition to defy his order, including the two persons mentioned, who according to their own statements had come to the place with the deliberate intention of breaking the law. Government recognise that in the dispersal of unlawful assemblies, when rapid decisions must be made on the spur of the moment, it is difficult for the officer in command to regulate the exact amount of force requisite to effect the dispersals and that allowance must be made for honest errors of judgment when there is no question of personal vindictiveness.
§ Government, however, consider that the beating of the two persons mentioned above was unduly prolonged and in excess of the requirements of the situation. The inspector who was in charge of the police party must be held responsible for what in Government's opinion was a serious error of discretion, but there is no suggestion of any personal vindictiveness on his part or on the part of any other member of the police party, since two persons were personally unknown to them.
§ The Commissioner of Police has already transferred the inspector and in the circumstances of the case, Government have directed the Commissioner to inform him of their disapproval of his conduct, in so far as he allowed force to be employed in excess of requirements of the situation.