<p>A police encounter is essentially an engagement between the police and criminals, in which, depending on the gravity of the situation, firearms may be used, resulting in injuries or even casualties on either side. It is a legitimate function under the law. However, in popular parlance, a police encounter has come to imply an engagement where police take recourse to extra-judicial methods to liquidate criminals.</p>.<p>This practice was developed, and a certain degree of notoriety was acquired during the British rule in India. In the much celebrated anti-Thuggee campaign, the colonial power, as observed by Tom Lloyd of the University of Edinburgh, “relied upon the creation of a zone of sovereign power that was justified as a means to ends that conventional, judicial power could not reach.” The British officers “abrogated for themselves the right to produce specific definitions of criminality that located the accused in a realm beyond what was defined as ordinary legal procedure.” </p>.<p>It is a sad reflection on our policing that such methods are continuing to this day, albeit to a lesser extent. The Supreme Court has, in several cases, criticised the extra-judicial killing of criminals in so-called encounters.</p>.<p>In 2012, in Om Prakash vs State of Jharkhand, the court held that extra-judicial killings are not legal under our criminal justice administration.</p>.<p><strong>Recent developments </strong></p>.<p>Unfortunately, however, such incidents continue to happen across the country. Recently, in Hubballi, a native of Bihar was accused of sexually assaulting and murdering a five-year-old child. </p>.<p>There was an outburst of public anger. Soon after, the police shot the accused dead on April 13, when he allegedly attacked the police and tried to escape. The state government has handed over the investigation of the case to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).</p>.<p>The Karnataka High Court, responding to a PIL filed by a civil society organisation, has given an interim order, directing the state authorities to strictly adhere to the Supreme Court guidelines on the subject. It may be recalled that earlier, in 2019, the Telangana Police had also, shot dead four men accused of the gang rape of a veterinarian in Hyderabad. </p>.Bihar man abducts, murders 5-yr-old in Karnataka; killed in 'encounter'.<p>A judicial inquiry into the incident brought out that the police version was concocted and therefore unbelievable. The Supreme Court, in <em>PUCL vs State of Maharashtra</em> (2014), laid down a comprehensive 16-point guideline, which was to be followed for “thorough, effective and independent investigation” in cases of police encounters. </p>.<p>These include the registration of an FIR; an independent investigation to be conducted by the CID or a police team from another police station; recovery and preservation of evidentiary material; a post-mortem examination by at least two doctors; a magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code; prompt communication of the incident to the NHRC; surrender of weapons by the police officer(s) concerned for forensic and ballistic analysis; and, if it is found that the death occurred due to the use of a firearm in a manner constituting an offence under the IPC, prompt initiation of disciplinary action and suspension of the officer(s) involved.</p>.<p>The court further said that officers involved should not receive out-of-turn promotion or gallantry awards until the inquiry confirms the genuineness of the encounter. </p>.<p><strong>Approaches to policing</strong></p>.<p>Why is it that the police take recourse to extra-judicial methods? A recent study by Common Cause and Centre for the Study of Developing Societies on Police Torture and Accountability brought out that 22% of police personnel believe that killing “dangerous criminals” is better than giving them a legal trial. </p>.<p>It is also a fact that there is a considerable measure of support among the people for this shortcut. The support may stem from a lack of faith in the criminal justice system to deliver justice within a reasonable time. For instance, it took 40 years to convict the killers of L N Mishra, the then railway minister. He was murdered in 1975.</p>.<p>In the Nirbhaya case, the fast-track court took more than six years to sentence the accused. In the 1984 Delhi riots case, survivors are still crying for justice. There is a huge pendency of cases at all levels in the judiciary. As of November 30, 2024, the total number of pending cases across Indian courts was approximately 5.15 crore (Supreme Court of India: 82,171 cases; high courts: 57.82 lakh cases; district and subordinate courts: 4.56 crore cases).</p>.<p><strong>External pressures</strong></p>.<p>The political masters and the senior officers, at times, put pressure on the investigating officers for quick results. This also leads to police officers at the ground level adopting questionable methods.</p>.<p>Ministry of Home Affairs figures of deaths in police encounters in some states of the country from 2016 to 2022 are as follows: Assam 79, Chhattisgarh 259, Jharkhand 52, Maharashtra 33, Odisha 40 and Uttar Pradesh 110. It is important to note that Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand have Maoist insurgency issues, and Assam, too, has multiple agitating outfits.</p>.<p>UP’s figures are high, but, according to Prashant Kumar, the State DGP, they “have diligently followed the guidelines enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in all our encounters”. </p>.<p>Police encounters, in fact, happen across the world. In the Philippines, the police are reported to have killed 6,069 persons between 2016 and 2021. These were mostly people engaged in the drug trade. In Brazil, the police are reported to have killed 5,804 persons in 2019 alone. In Venezuela, as well, the police liquidated 5,286 persons in 2019. In the US, the figure stood at 1,096 in 2022.</p>.<p>If the number of killings were calculated per 10 million of population, the figures for some of the countries would be as follows: Venezuela 1,830, El Salvador 1,704, Philippines 557, Brazil 276, USA 33, and India 13.</p>.<p>There is, however, no justification for fake police encounters, and we cannot allow this state of affairs to continue. India must have professional police committed to upholding the rule of law. It is therefore absolutely essential that we enact a law against torture and ratify the UN Convention on Torture, which India signed as far back as 1997.</p>.<p>Governments in the states and at the Centre should, at the same time, take steps to insulate the police from external pressures, give them operational autonomy, provide them with the necessary workforce, and improve their infrastructure in terms of transport, communications and especially, forensic laboratories. We cannot have Viksit Bharat with a colonial policing system; we cannot build a world-class economy on the foundations of sand; we shall need robust law and order for that. </p>.<p><em>(Prakash Singh was formerly Director General of Border Security Force, DGP UP and DGP Assam)</em></p>
<p>A police encounter is essentially an engagement between the police and criminals, in which, depending on the gravity of the situation, firearms may be used, resulting in injuries or even casualties on either side. It is a legitimate function under the law. However, in popular parlance, a police encounter has come to imply an engagement where police take recourse to extra-judicial methods to liquidate criminals.</p>.<p>This practice was developed, and a certain degree of notoriety was acquired during the British rule in India. In the much celebrated anti-Thuggee campaign, the colonial power, as observed by Tom Lloyd of the University of Edinburgh, “relied upon the creation of a zone of sovereign power that was justified as a means to ends that conventional, judicial power could not reach.” The British officers “abrogated for themselves the right to produce specific definitions of criminality that located the accused in a realm beyond what was defined as ordinary legal procedure.” </p>.<p>It is a sad reflection on our policing that such methods are continuing to this day, albeit to a lesser extent. The Supreme Court has, in several cases, criticised the extra-judicial killing of criminals in so-called encounters.</p>.<p>In 2012, in Om Prakash vs State of Jharkhand, the court held that extra-judicial killings are not legal under our criminal justice administration.</p>.<p><strong>Recent developments </strong></p>.<p>Unfortunately, however, such incidents continue to happen across the country. Recently, in Hubballi, a native of Bihar was accused of sexually assaulting and murdering a five-year-old child. </p>.<p>There was an outburst of public anger. Soon after, the police shot the accused dead on April 13, when he allegedly attacked the police and tried to escape. The state government has handed over the investigation of the case to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).</p>.<p>The Karnataka High Court, responding to a PIL filed by a civil society organisation, has given an interim order, directing the state authorities to strictly adhere to the Supreme Court guidelines on the subject. It may be recalled that earlier, in 2019, the Telangana Police had also, shot dead four men accused of the gang rape of a veterinarian in Hyderabad. </p>.Bihar man abducts, murders 5-yr-old in Karnataka; killed in 'encounter'.<p>A judicial inquiry into the incident brought out that the police version was concocted and therefore unbelievable. The Supreme Court, in <em>PUCL vs State of Maharashtra</em> (2014), laid down a comprehensive 16-point guideline, which was to be followed for “thorough, effective and independent investigation” in cases of police encounters. </p>.<p>These include the registration of an FIR; an independent investigation to be conducted by the CID or a police team from another police station; recovery and preservation of evidentiary material; a post-mortem examination by at least two doctors; a magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code; prompt communication of the incident to the NHRC; surrender of weapons by the police officer(s) concerned for forensic and ballistic analysis; and, if it is found that the death occurred due to the use of a firearm in a manner constituting an offence under the IPC, prompt initiation of disciplinary action and suspension of the officer(s) involved.</p>.<p>The court further said that officers involved should not receive out-of-turn promotion or gallantry awards until the inquiry confirms the genuineness of the encounter. </p>.<p><strong>Approaches to policing</strong></p>.<p>Why is it that the police take recourse to extra-judicial methods? A recent study by Common Cause and Centre for the Study of Developing Societies on Police Torture and Accountability brought out that 22% of police personnel believe that killing “dangerous criminals” is better than giving them a legal trial. </p>.<p>It is also a fact that there is a considerable measure of support among the people for this shortcut. The support may stem from a lack of faith in the criminal justice system to deliver justice within a reasonable time. For instance, it took 40 years to convict the killers of L N Mishra, the then railway minister. He was murdered in 1975.</p>.<p>In the Nirbhaya case, the fast-track court took more than six years to sentence the accused. In the 1984 Delhi riots case, survivors are still crying for justice. There is a huge pendency of cases at all levels in the judiciary. As of November 30, 2024, the total number of pending cases across Indian courts was approximately 5.15 crore (Supreme Court of India: 82,171 cases; high courts: 57.82 lakh cases; district and subordinate courts: 4.56 crore cases).</p>.<p><strong>External pressures</strong></p>.<p>The political masters and the senior officers, at times, put pressure on the investigating officers for quick results. This also leads to police officers at the ground level adopting questionable methods.</p>.<p>Ministry of Home Affairs figures of deaths in police encounters in some states of the country from 2016 to 2022 are as follows: Assam 79, Chhattisgarh 259, Jharkhand 52, Maharashtra 33, Odisha 40 and Uttar Pradesh 110. It is important to note that Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand have Maoist insurgency issues, and Assam, too, has multiple agitating outfits.</p>.<p>UP’s figures are high, but, according to Prashant Kumar, the State DGP, they “have diligently followed the guidelines enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in all our encounters”. </p>.<p>Police encounters, in fact, happen across the world. In the Philippines, the police are reported to have killed 6,069 persons between 2016 and 2021. These were mostly people engaged in the drug trade. In Brazil, the police are reported to have killed 5,804 persons in 2019 alone. In Venezuela, as well, the police liquidated 5,286 persons in 2019. In the US, the figure stood at 1,096 in 2022.</p>.<p>If the number of killings were calculated per 10 million of population, the figures for some of the countries would be as follows: Venezuela 1,830, El Salvador 1,704, Philippines 557, Brazil 276, USA 33, and India 13.</p>.<p>There is, however, no justification for fake police encounters, and we cannot allow this state of affairs to continue. India must have professional police committed to upholding the rule of law. It is therefore absolutely essential that we enact a law against torture and ratify the UN Convention on Torture, which India signed as far back as 1997.</p>.<p>Governments in the states and at the Centre should, at the same time, take steps to insulate the police from external pressures, give them operational autonomy, provide them with the necessary workforce, and improve their infrastructure in terms of transport, communications and especially, forensic laboratories. We cannot have Viksit Bharat with a colonial policing system; we cannot build a world-class economy on the foundations of sand; we shall need robust law and order for that. </p>.<p><em>(Prakash Singh was formerly Director General of Border Security Force, DGP UP and DGP Assam)</em></p>