Punjab HC Slams Fake Encounters, HC criticizes extrajudicial actions, directs Punjab Government to ensure accountability and uphold constitutional principles.
Fake Encounters : In a landmark decision that underscores the importance of upholding constitutional values, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a firm stand against the disturbing trend of Fake Encounters allegedly carried out by law enforcement agencies. The court, while hearing a public interest litigation concerning an alleged staged encounter, stated unequivocally that “it is not acceptable for law enforcers to become judges and executioners themselves.” The bench emphasized the need for stringent oversight and accountability, sending a clear message to the Punjab government and police forces across the region.
The court’s remarks come at a time when concerns about human rights violations and abuse of power by the police are increasingly coming under the scanner. The justices observed that the use of extrajudicial killings as a tool of justice undermines the very fabric of democracy and rule of law. “Every citizen, regardless of their alleged crime, has a right to due process,” the bench noted. The judiciary cannot permit a parallel system of justice that operates outside the bounds of the Constitution.
The PIL in question revolved around the mysterious death of a man in Punjab, allegedly killed during an ‘ Fake Encounters ’ staged by police officials. The petitioner claimed that the incident was a blatant violation of human rights and sought an independent investigation. Taking cognizance of the matter, the High Court questioned the state’s legal framework for police accountability and demanded a report from the government outlining the steps taken to prevent such occurrences.
The court further criticized the state’s failure to adhere to the Supreme Court’s guidelines on encounter killings, laid down in the landmark People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. State of Maharashtra case. These guidelines require, among other things, immediate registration of an FIR, independent investigation, and a magisterial inquiry into all police encounter deaths. The bench expressed disappointment that these directives were not being consistently followed, leading to a culture of impunity within the police force.
In response to the court’s observations, the Punjab government has been ordered to submit a comprehensive status report within four weeks. The report must detail the number of police encounters reported in the last five years, the outcomes of investigations, and the actions taken against officers found guilty of misconduct. The court also urged the government to consider setting up an independent oversight body to investigate complaints against the police—a move that could lead to greater transparency and public trust in the justice system.
Legal experts have lauded the court’s intervention, calling it a crucial step toward reinforcing civil liberties and discouraging the normalization of unlawful police practices. “This judgment serves as a reminder that the rule of law is non-negotiable. The state cannot abdicate its responsibility to protect life and liberty,” said senior advocate Maninder Singh.
Human rights organizations have long raised alarms about the misuse of ‘encounter’ killings to eliminate suspects without trial. While some sections of society view such actions as a swift method of delivering justice, they violate fundamental legal principles and often result in the death of innocent individuals. The High Court’s ruling aims to recalibrate this skewed perception by reiterating that law enforcement must operate within the boundaries of legality and ethics.
The decision also places a spotlight on the need for police reforms, including enhanced training, improved investigation techniques, and mechanisms to ensure accountability. The court emphasized that effective policing must be rooted in justice and fairness, not fear and intimidation.
In concluding its order, the High Court stressed that allowing law enforcement agencies to operate as “judges, jury, and executioner” risks converting the state into a lawless entity. It reiterated that justice must always be administered through the judiciary, not enforced at gunpoint. “Any deviation from this principle would spell the collapse of the democratic system,” the court remarked sternly.
This judgment serves as a critical reminder to the executive and police forces that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and its values must guide every action undertaken by the state. It is now up to the Punjab government to respond with concrete steps, not just to comply with the court’s order, but to restore public faith in the justice system. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether this stern judicial rebuke results in meaningful change or simply becomes another entry in the long list of unheeded warnings.