Kill the encounter, it undermines rule of law

Why in the News

A man accused of raping and murdering a minor girl in Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal, has been killed in a police “encounter“, the fourth such incident in the State since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in May. The Chief Minister has publicly defended a “free hand” to the police in cases of sexual violence. The pattern raises the concern that due process is being bypassed in a climate of impunity.

What is a police “encounter”, and why does it trouble the rule of law?

1. What it is: An “encounter” is the killing or shooting of an accused person by the police. It is like a referee who decides the punishment and carries it out on the spot.
2. Due process bypassed: Due process means guilt is settled through investigation, prosecution and trial. An encounter ends the case before any court tests the evidence.
3. Lawful force versus retribution: Enabling the police to act decisively within the law is fundamentally different from endorsing a culture of retribution.
4. The takeaway: When the police punish, the accused loses a trial and citizens lose a check on state power.

How widespread is the pattern?

1. West Bengal: The frequency of incidents shows the encounter becoming routine in a State with a long history of political violence.
2. Andhra Pradesh: In Anantapur this month, the police shot a 21 year old accused of attacking a schoolgirl with a chainsaw, and his leg was later amputated.
3. Hyderabad, 2019: All four accused in a rape and murder case were killed in an alleged encounter.
4. Uttar Pradesh: Official statistics record 17,043 police encounter operations from March 2017 to May this year.
5. Punjab: The Punjab Police reported 34 encounters from November 2025 to January this year, more than one every three days.

Why does “instant justice” appeal, and what does it cost?

1. Public approval: The promise of instant justice wins public approval when leaders present it as proof of resolve against crime.
2. Less visible processes: Investigation, prosecution and trial are less visible, yet the rule of law cannot work without them.
3. Institutional credibility: Leaders gain political support from displays of toughness, and institutions lose credibility as a result.
4. Weaker accountability: Each display of toughness weakens accountability further, and this cycle shrinks citizens’ freedoms.

What safeguards have the courts laid down?

1. PUCL ruling (2014): In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v State of Maharashtra (2014), the Supreme Court laid down safeguards for investigating police encounters that result in death.
2. FIR, investigation and inquiry: The safeguards include mandatory registration of a First Information Report (FIR), the document that starts a criminal case. They also include an independent investigation and a magisterial inquiry.
3. Reaffirmed in 2025: In Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder v State of Assam (May 2025), the Court held the safeguards binding. They do not depend on the victim or the family starting proceedings.
4. Limited effect: Court interventions have done little to stop the pattern, because their effect depends on compliance by institutions.

Challenges

1. Police investigating police: The force that carried out the encounter often writes the first record of it.
2. Slow trials: Delays in trials for sexual crimes feed the public demand for quick punishment.
3. Political endorsement: Public defence of encounters by elected leaders signals to officers that they will be protected.
4. Weak oversight bodies: The Police Complaints Authorities that the Supreme Court directed in Prakash Singh (2006) are missing or weak in many States.

Way Forward

1. Enforce the 2014 safeguards: State governments should register an FIR and order an independent investigation after every encounter death.
2. Human rights reporting: Police should report every encounter death to the National Human Rights Commission or the State commission, as the 2014 ruling requires.
3. Independent oversight: States should set up working Police Complaints Authorities.
4. Faster trials: High Courts and States should speed up trials in sexual violence cases, so that lawful punishment is certain.

Conclusion

Criminal justice draws its legitimacy from the certainty and fairness of due process, not from the speed or spectacle of punishment. Whether State governments comply with the binding safeguards after each encounter death is the measure to watch.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Right to privacy relating to self-identity is very dear to every human being and well protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, examine the effect of the amendment in 2026, to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.”