Allahabad HC Criticizes U.P. Police for Shooting Accused During Encounters
Allahabad HC condemns U.P. police for shooting accused in legs during encounters, violating judicial process.
Photo by ui-martin
The Allahabad High Court criticized the Uttar Pradesh police for shooting theft accused in the legs during alleged encounters, stating that such actions are not permissible under the law. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that the practice of police encounters, particularly shooting in the legs, has become routine to please superiors or punish the accused, which is the judiciary's domain. The court granted bail to an accused who sustained gunshot injuries in an alleged police encounter in Mirzapur.
The High Court issued fresh guidelines for the U.P. police to follow in encounter cases, including immediate FIR registration, medical aid to the injured, and recording statements before a magistrate. The court also stated that out-of-turn promotions or gallantry awards should not be given to officers soon after an encounter.
Key Facts
Allahabad HC: Criticized U.P. police for shooting accused
Police encounters: Shooting in legs is not permissible
Fresh guidelines: Issued for U.P. police in encounter cases
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Issues relating to law enforcement and human rights
GS Paper III: Internal Security - Role of police in maintaining law and order
Potential question types: Analytical questions on police reforms, ethical dilemmas faced by law enforcement, and the balance between security and human rights
Visual Insights
Uttar Pradesh: Reported Encounter Cases
Map showing the location of Mirzapur, where the alleged police encounter took place, highlighting the issue of police encounters in Uttar Pradesh.
Loading interactive map...
More Information
Background
The history of police encounters in India is complex and controversial. While not explicitly defined in law, the term generally refers to incidents where police use deadly force, often resulting in the death of a suspect. Encounters have been a recurring feature of law enforcement, particularly in regions facing insurgency or high crime rates.
The legal framework governing the use of force by police is derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows for the use of force, including deadly force, in self-defense or to prevent the escape of an accused person. However, the interpretation and application of these provisions have been subject to debate, with concerns raised about extrajudicial killings and the violation of human rights. Landmark cases and judicial pronouncements have attempted to define the limits of permissible force and ensure accountability in encounter killings.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has also issued guidelines to be followed in cases of alleged encounter killings.
Latest Developments
In recent years, there has been increasing scrutiny of police encounters in India, with civil society organizations and human rights groups raising concerns about their legality and transparency. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have issued guidelines and directives to ensure that encounter killings are thoroughly investigated and that those responsible are held accountable. The debate over police encounters often revolves around the balance between maintaining law and order and protecting the fundamental rights of individuals.
The use of technology, such as CCTV cameras and forensic evidence, is being increasingly emphasized to ensure that investigations into encounter killings are conducted in a fair and impartial manner. The future outlook involves a greater focus on police reforms, including training on human rights and the use of non-lethal methods of crowd control, to reduce the incidence of encounter killings and promote a more humane approach to law enforcement. There is also a growing emphasis on witness protection programs to encourage individuals to come forward with information about encounter killings without fear of reprisal.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the core issue highlighted by the Allahabad High Court in the U.P. police encounter cases?
The Allahabad High Court criticized the U.P. police for routinely shooting accused individuals in the legs during alleged encounters, deeming it unlawful and an overreach of police power.
2. What are the key facts about the Allahabad High Court's observations on police encounters for UPSC Prelims?
The Allahabad High Court criticized the U.P. police's practice of shooting accused in the legs during encounters. The court emphasized that such actions are not permissible and issued fresh guidelines for U.P. police to follow in encounter cases.
3. What fresh guidelines did the Allahabad High Court issue for U.P. police in encounter cases?
The Allahabad High Court issued guidelines including immediate FIR registration, medical aid to the injured, and recording statements before a magistrate.
4. What is the significance of the Supreme Court's 2014 guidelines in *PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra* in relation to the Allahabad HC's recent observations?
The Supreme Court's 2014 guidelines in *PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra* set a precedent for ensuring accountability and transparency in police encounter cases. The Allahabad HC's observations and fresh guidelines align with the spirit of these earlier guidelines by emphasizing the need for proper investigation and adherence to the law.
5. Why is the Allahabad High Court's criticism of U.P. police encounters in the news recently?
The Allahabad High Court's criticism is in the news because it highlights concerns about the legality and ethics of police encounters, particularly the use of excessive force. The court's intervention and issuance of fresh guidelines underscore the need for greater accountability and adherence to due process in law enforcement.
6. How might the Allahabad High Court's observations impact the morale and functioning of the U.P. Police?
The observations might lead to increased scrutiny and caution among police officers during encounters. While it could deter unlawful actions, it might also affect their ability to respond effectively to genuine threats, requiring a balance between upholding the law and maintaining public safety.
7. What is the potential impact of the Allahabad High Court's guidelines on common citizens in Uttar Pradesh?
The guidelines aim to protect the rights of accused individuals and ensure fair treatment under the law. This could lead to greater transparency and accountability in policing, potentially reducing instances of unlawful detention or extrajudicial actions, thus fostering a safer and more just environment for citizens.
8. What is the constitutional basis for the Allahabad High Court's intervention in the U.P. police encounter cases?
The Allahabad High Court's intervention is rooted in its power of judicial review and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). The court acts as a guardian of these rights, ensuring that state actions, including those of the police, are in accordance with the law.
9. What are the related concepts to police encounters that are important for UPSC preparation?
Related concepts include Article 21 (Right to Life), judicial review, human rights, police powers, and criminal justice administration. Understanding these concepts provides a broader context for analyzing the issue of police encounters.
10. How do out-of-turn promotions and gallantry awards for police officers involved in encounters potentially undermine the judicial process, as highlighted by the Allahabad HC?
The Allahabad HC stated that out-of-turn promotions or gallantry awards should not be given. Such rewards can incentivize officers to prioritize encounters over due process, potentially leading to human rights violations and undermining the judiciary's role in administering justice.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the use of force by police in India: 1. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows for the use of force, including deadly force, in self-defense or to prevent the escape of an accused person. 2. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has the power to directly prosecute police officers involved in alleged encounter killings. 3. Out-of-turn promotions or gallantry awards to police officers soon after an encounter are permissible under existing guidelines to boost morale. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.2 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is CORRECT: The CrPC does allow for the use of force, including deadly force, in self-defense or to prevent the escape of an accused person. This is a fundamental principle of law enforcement. Statement 2 is INCORRECT: The NHRC does NOT have the power to directly prosecute police officers. It can investigate and recommend action, but prosecution is the responsibility of the state government. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: The Allahabad High Court's recent guidelines specifically discourage out-of-turn promotions or gallantry awards soon after an encounter to prevent incentivizing such actions.
2. In the context of police encounters in India, which of the following statements best describes the role of the judiciary?
- A.The judiciary has no role in investigating police encounters; it is solely the executive's domain.
- B.The judiciary's role is limited to granting bail to the accused involved in encounters.
- C.The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability and adherence to legal procedures in encounter cases through judicial review and issuing guidelines.
- D.The judiciary can only intervene if the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) refers a case to it.
Show Answer
Answer: C
Option C is the most accurate. The judiciary's role extends beyond granting bail. It includes judicial review of police actions, ensuring adherence to legal procedures, and issuing guidelines to prevent abuse of power. The judiciary acts as a check on the executive to protect fundamental rights.
3. Assertion (A): The Allahabad High Court has criticized the U.P. Police for shooting theft accused in the legs during alleged encounters. Reason (R): Such actions are considered a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In the context of the above statements, which of the following is correct?
- A.Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
- B.Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
- C.A is true, but R is false.
- D.A is false, but R is true.
Show Answer
Answer: A
Both the assertion and the reason are true, and the reason correctly explains the assertion. The Allahabad High Court did criticize the U.P. Police for the practice, and such actions are indeed considered a violation of Article 21, as they infringe upon the right to life and personal liberty.
Source Articles
Rape-accused man out on bail shoots woman, arrested - The Hindu
Bandh in Assam’s Kokrajhar over mentally-challenged woman’s rape; accused injured in police firing - The Hindu
Coimbatore gang rape: Police arrest three men after shooting them in legs - The Hindu
Badlapur sexual assault case: Bombay HC raps police for inability to nab accused school trustees - The Hindu
Parakamani case: A.P. CID seizes key files after High Court raps police over lapses in probe - The Hindu