The Allahabad High Court has issued stringent directions to regulate police encounters in Uttar Pradesh, expressing serious concern over the increasing number of cases in which accused persons sustain gunshot injuries during alleged encounters. The court observed that the police cannot assume the role of judge, jury, or executioner, and reiterated that punishment can only be imposed through due process of law by courts. The order was passed while dealing with a bail application arising out of an encounter case, but the court expanded the scope of its observations to address a broader and recurring pattern of non-compliance with constitutional safeguards and binding judicial precedents.
The High Court noted that in several instances of encounters, accused persons were shot in the legs or otherwise grievously injured, often without any corresponding injury to police personnel. This raised serious doubts about the necessity and proportionality of the use of force. The court remarked that encounters appeared to be increasingly treated as routine operations rather than exceptional situations of last resort, and expressed concern that such actions were sometimes driven by expectations of promotions, rewards, or public acclaim rather than genuine self-defence or public safety requirements.
Emphasising that the Supreme Court has already laid down detailed procedures governing police encounters, the High Court observed that these guidelines were being repeatedly ignored. It underlined that adherence to these safeguards is mandatory and not optional, and that any deviation undermines the rule of law and constitutional guarantees of life and personal liberty. The court reiterated that it is solely within the judiciary’s domain to determine guilt and impose punishment, and that police authorities are required to act strictly within the confines of law.
To address these concerns, the High Court laid down mandatory directions to be followed in all cases where police encounters result in grievous injury. It directed that whenever firearms are used and serious injuries are caused, a First Information Report must be registered by the head of the police party involved, either at the same police station or a nearby one. The investigation must then be handed over to an independent agency such as the Crime Branch or a police team from another station, under the supervision of an officer senior in rank to the encounter team leader. The court clarified that the FIR need not name individual police officers as accused at the outset, but may refer to the police team collectively to ensure an unbiased investigation.
The court further directed that immediate medical aid must be provided to the injured person, irrespective of whether the individual is an accused or otherwise. The injured person’s statement must be recorded before a magistrate or a medical officer, subject to certification of fitness. After completion of the investigation, the report must be placed before the competent court, which will then proceed in accordance with established legal principles governing encounter cases.
In a significant direction aimed at curbing incentives for excessive use of force, the High Court prohibited the grant of out-of-turn promotions, gallantry awards, or similar benefits to police personnel immediately after an encounter. It held that such rewards, if any, may be considered only after an independent evaluation by a competent committee that confirms the act as genuine and lawful. The court also provided a remedial mechanism for victims, stating that if the injured person or their family believes that proper procedure was not followed or that the investigation was biased, they may approach the territorial Sessions Judge, who can examine the grievance and take appropriate steps.
The High Court warned that Superintendents of Police and Senior Superintendents of Police would be personally responsible for ensuring compliance with these directions and the Supreme Court’s guidelines. Failure to do so could invite contempt proceedings. The court’s order reflects strong judicial disapproval of what it described as an emerging encounter culture and seeks to reinforce accountability, transparency, and adherence to constitutional norms in police operations.
Through these directions, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that law enforcement agencies must function within legal boundaries and that protection of fundamental rights cannot be compromised in the name of crime control. The order aims to ensure that encounters are subjected to strict scrutiny and that the criminal justice system, rather than summary police action, remains the sole mechanism for determining guilt and punishment.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.