UTTAR Pradesh has witnessed, on average, five encounters every day under Yogi Adityanath’s rule over the past nine years. According to the state government, the encounters have led to the killing of 289 “hardened criminals”, while around 12,000 have been injured. These striking figures have reignited the debate about trigger-happy cops and the limits of state power. The BJP dispensation portrays these encounters as evidence of a “zero-tolerance” policy against criminal elements. As per the National Crime Records Bureau’s latest report, UP’s crime rate is 180.2 per one lakh population – far lower than the national average of 252.3. The relentless crackdown has apparently weakened organised crime networks, but the means employed to achieve this goal have come under scrutiny.
There is no denying that public safety is a vital responsibility of the state. Citizens expect swift action against extortionists, gangsters and other hardcore offenders. Cops are authorised to use force in self-defence, but the celebration of encounters as a governance model raises serious constitutional concerns. The Allahabad High Court’s remarks about the growing trend of accused persons being shot in the legs suggest a troubling normalisation of extra-judicial methods. The HC rightly reminded the state in January this year that punishment was the exclusive domain of courts, not the police. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, even the most dreaded criminal possesses constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court’s 2014 guidelines were framed precisely to curb fake encounters and misuse of police power. Mandatory FIRs, independent investigations, magisterial inquiries and transparent documentation are important safeguards to ensure justice. The danger lies in the glorification of encounter policing. Due process is undermined when “instant justice” becomes politically rewarding. Uttar Pradesh’s challenge is not only to reduce crime, but also to do so within the bounds of the law.
