The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh Police for what it described as a recurring and disturbing practice of shooting accused persons in the leg during alleged police encounters. The Court has sought a detailed explanation from the State’s top officials, raising serious concerns about rule of law, police accountability, and compliance with Supreme Court guidelines on encounter cases.
The observations were made while hearing bail applications in cases where the accused had sustained gunshot injuries during police action.
Background of the Case
The issue came up before a Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal while dealing with bail pleas filed by accused persons who were injured during purported police encounters. In each of these cases, the accused were shot in the leg, while no police personnel suffered any injuries.
The Court noted a visible pattern in such cases, observing that shooting accused persons in the leg has increasingly become a routine police practice rather than an exceptional use of force justified by necessity.
Court’s Observations on Police Conduct
The Allahabad High Court made several pointed observations questioning the legality and intent behind such actions.
First, the Court emphasised that punishment is the exclusive domain of the judiciary. Police officers cannot assume the role of judge and executioner, even in cases involving serious criminal allegations. Any attempt to inflict physical injury on an accused outside the due process of law amounts to a direct violation of constitutional principles.
Second, the Bench expressed concern that such encounters may be driven by extraneous motivations, including the desire to demonstrate efficiency, earn commendations, or gain publicity for so-called “tough policing.” The Court warned that governance through fear or violence cannot replace lawful criminal procedure.
Third, the Court questioned why firearms were used at all when the circumstances did not indicate an imminent threat to police life. The absence of injuries to police personnel further weakened the justification for the use of lethal weapons.
Non-Compliance With Supreme Court Guidelines
The Allahabad High Court reminded the State that the Supreme Court has laid down mandatory safeguards governing police encounter cases, particularly in:
- People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra
- AP Police Officers Association v. AP Civil Liberties Committee (2022)
These guidelines require, among other things:
- Mandatory registration of an FIR in encounter cases
- Independent investigation by a senior officer not involved in the incident
- Recording of the injured accused’s statement before a Magistrate or Medical Officer
- Transparency and accountability at every stage of investigation
The Court observed that these safeguards appeared to have been ignored or diluted in the cases before it, rendering the police action legally suspect.
Directions Issued by the Court
Taking serious note of the issue, the High Court directed:
- The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and
- The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh
to appear before the Court via video conferencing and explain:
- Whether there exists any written or oral policy permitting police officers to shoot accused persons in the leg
- What institutional safeguards are in place to ensure compliance with Supreme Court-mandated encounter procedures
- How accountability is fixed when such incidents occur
The matter has been listed for further hearing, and the Court has made it clear that the State must justify its policing methods within the framework of constitutional law.
Legal Significance of the Order
This order is significant for multiple reasons.
It reinforces the principle that law enforcement is bound by law, not by perceived efficiency or public approval. The judgment also reiterates that encounters, even when resulting in non-fatal injuries, cannot be normalised or justified without strict adherence to legal standards.
More importantly, the Court’s insistence on personal accountability of top officials signals judicial unwillingness to tolerate systemic abuse of power under the guise of crime control.
If the State fails to provide satisfactory explanations, the matter may pave the way for stricter judicial oversight, policy intervention, or disciplinary consequences.
Also Read- Supreme Court Stays UGC’s Equity Regulations, 2026; 2012 Rules to Remain in Force
The Allahabad High Court’s intervention serves as a reminder that constitutional governance cannot coexist with informal punishment mechanisms. Policing in a democratic society must operate within the boundaries of legality, transparency, and judicial supervision.
Encounters cannot become a substitute for investigation, trial, and adjudication. Any deviation from this framework threatens the very foundation of the rule of law.
Connect with us on Instagram – X – LinkedIn for daily updates, quizzes, and other materials
