ANALYZING THE LEGAL

FRAMEWORK SURROUNDING
POLICE ENCOUNTERS
(This Project work has been submitted towards the fulfilment of 2nd semester
LLB 3year Law)

SUBMITTED TO: MS. GEETI PRAGYAN MOHAPATRA

SUBMITTED BY: ATRI KARMAKAR

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 24L211AO1

BATCH: LLB (H) [2nd SEMESTER]

Siksha ‘O ’Anusandhan National Institute of Law (SNIL)

SIKSHA O ANUSANDHAN (Deemed to be university)

1
 ABSTRACT
This research paper examines the legal framework governing police encounters in India,
focusing on constitutional provisions, statutory laws, judicial guidelines, and their implications
for human rights and the rule of law. Police encounters, often resulting in extrajudicial killings,
have sparked significant debate about their legality, necessity, and ethicality. The paper
analyzes key legal provisions, including the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside constitutional protections under Articles 14, 21,
and 22. It also evaluates Supreme Court rulings and National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) guidelines that aim to regulate encounters and ensure accountability. By addressing
case studies, statistical data, and contemporary challenges, the study highlights tensions
between public safety and due process, offering recommendations for reform to align police
practices with democratic principles and answering one key question DOES GIVING SO
MUCH POWER IN HANDS OF POLICE THAT THEY CAN KILL A HUMAN BEING
JUSTIFIED?

2
 INDEX

S.No TITLE Pg.No

1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING POLICE 4

ENCOUNTERS

3 CASE STUDIES AND STATISTICAL INSIGHTS 6

4 CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES 7

5 RECOMMENDATIONS 8

6 CONCLUSION 8

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 9

3
 INTRODUCTION
Police encounters in India, often termed "encounter killings," refer to incidents where law
enforcement officers engage with alleged criminals, frequently resulting in the latter’s death.
These events, purportedly occurring in self-defense, have become a contentious issue, raising
questions about their legality and alignment with the rule of law. High-profile cases, such as
the 2019 Hyderabad encounter and the 2020 Vikas Dubey killing, have intensified public and
judicial scrutiny. This paper explores the legal framework governing police encounters,
including constitutional safeguards, statutory provisions, and judicial oversight, while
addressing challenges like fake encounters, lack of accountability, and public perceptions of
retributive justice.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING POLICE

ENCOUNTERS
Constitutional Protections
The Indian Constitution provides foundational protections that shape the legal boundaries of
police encounters:
• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection, ensuring that
police actions must be non-discriminatory and lawful. Encounters that bypass judicial
processes violate this principle by denying individuals the right to a fair trial.
• Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, stipulating that no person shall
be deprived of these rights except by procedure established by law. Fake encounters,
which circumvent due process, are unconstitutional under this provision.
• Article 22: Grants rights to accused persons, including protection against arbitrary
arrest and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, principles undermined by
extrajudicial killings.
Statutory Provisions
Several laws outline the circumstances under which police may use force, including lethal
force, during encounters:
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023:
o Section 43: Authorizes police to use necessary force, including lethal force, to
arrest a person accused of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment,
provided such force is proportionate.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:

4
 o Sections 34–44: Outline provisions related to arrests and the use of force,
including exemptions from liability when death is caused in the exercise of
private defense under specific circumstances, such as deadly assault.
o Section 101, Exception 2: Reinforces the right to private defense, allowing
lethal force against officials convicted of fake encounters.
• Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA):
o Section 4: Grants armed forces special powers to use force, including lethal
force, in disturbed areas, often leading to encounters. This provision has been
criticized for enabling impunity.
Judicial Guidelines
The Supreme Court of India and the NHRC have issued guidelines to regulate police
encounters and prevent abuse:
• PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014): The Supreme Court laid down 16-point
guidelines for investigating encounter deaths, including:
o Recording intelligence or tip-offs in writing or electronically.
o Registering a First Information Report (FIR) for every encounter resulting in
death.
o Conducting independent investigations by the Crime Investigation Department
(CID) or another police station.
o Mandating magisterial inquiries under Section 176 of the CrPC within three
months.
o Reporting all encounter deaths to the NHRC within 48 hours, with a second
report within three months including post-mortem and inquiry findings.
• NHRC Guidelines (1997, updated 2010):
o Require FIR registration for all encounter deaths.
o Mandate magisterial inquiries and independent investigations.
o Stipulate that unjustified use of force leading to death is a crime, with officers
liable for culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC.
• Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011): The Supreme Court
equated fake encounters to "cold-blooded murders," advocating the death penalty for
officers involved in proven cases, emphasizing accountability.
• Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand (2012): Declared extrajudicial killings illegal,
likening them to state-sponsored terrorism, reinforcing the need for adherence to due
process.

5
 CASE STUDIES
• Hyderabad Encounter (2019): Four accused in a rape and murder case were killed by
Telangana police, who claimed self-defense. A Supreme Court-appointed commission
later found the encounter staged, recommending prosecution for murder and evidence
tampering. This case highlighted public support for retributive justice but also raised
concerns about due process violations.
• Vikas Dubey Encounter (2020): Gangster Vikas Dubey, with over 60 criminal cases,
was killed in Uttar Pradesh. The encounter’s circumstances, including the disabling of
Dubey’s vehicle and alleged self-defense claims, were widely questioned, fueling
allegations of a fake encounter.

• Hathras Case (2020): The gang rape and murder of a Dalit woman in Hathras, Uttar
Pradesh, became a flashpoint for caste and gender-based violence in India. The police
faced severe criticism for their alleged mishandling of the case, including performing a
late-night cremation without the family’s consent and suppressing information. Protests
erupted nationwide, demanding justice for the victim. Allegations of extrajudicial
actions and disregard for procedural fairness added to the controversy.
• Kanpur Encounter (2020): In a high-profile case, eight police officers were killed in
Kanpur during an operation targeting Vikas Dubey’s criminal network. The incident
led to a series of retaliatory encounters by the police. Several of Dubey’s close
associates were killed during these operations. While authorities claimed these actions
were necessary for public safety, questions about accountability and adherence to the
rule of law were raised.
• Maoist Encounter in Chhattisgarh (2021): Chhattisgarh’s Bijapur district witnessed
a fierce clash between security forces and Maoist insurgents. The encounter led to
significant casualties on both sides, including the deaths of several security personnel.
While the government framed the action as part of its ongoing efforts to curb
insurgency, human rights groups highlighted concerns about collateral damage and the
need for a more measured approach to address such conflicts.
• Encounter in Manipur (2022): Manipur experienced a series of encounters between
security forces and suspected militants. These operations, intended to combat
insurgency, led to allegations of extrajudicial killings. Rights organizations and
activists called for impartial investigations, emphasizing the importance of lawful
methods even in conflict zones. These incidents reignited discussions on the balance
between maintaining national security and upholding human rights.

6
 CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES
Fake Encounters and Impunity
Fake encounters, where police stage killings to eliminate suspects or settle scores, violate
constitutional and international human rights standards, including Article 6 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects the right to life. The lack of
convictions, as noted by the NHRC, and the protection of officers by superiors or political
entities perpetuate impunity.
Political and Public Support
In states like Uttar Pradesh, encounters are sometimes endorsed as state policy, with political
leaders like Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath stating that criminals will be "jailed or killed in
encounters." Public sentiment often supports such actions as swift justice, undermining the rule
of law and normalizing extrajudicial measures.
Weak Oversight Mechanisms
Despite Supreme Court and NHRC guidelines, implementation remains inconsistent. The
NHRC’s credibility has been questioned, with the UN Human Rights Council denying its
accreditation due to pro-government bias. Video evidence and inquiry reports are often
inaccessible to victims’ families, hindering accountability.
Systemic Issues
Encounters reflect broader issues in India’s criminal justice system, including judicial delays,
inadequate investigations, and police politicization. The Second Administrative Reforms
Commission noted that political interference undermines police accountability, exacerbating
the misuse of force.
International Perspective
India’s encounter practices have drawn international criticism, particularly for not ratifying the
UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT). The UN Human Rights Council has labeled
encounters as murders, emphasizing violations of the ICCPR. In contrast, countries like Nepal
and Bhutan prioritize judicial processes over extrajudicial measures, offering potential models
for reform.

7
 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Strengthen Accountability: Enforce Supreme Court and NHRC guidelines rigorously,
ensuring independent investigations and timely prosecutions. Amend laws to limit
qualified immunity for officers involved in fake encounters.
2. Enhance Oversight: Reform the NHRC to restore impartiality and ensure transparency
in sharing inquiry reports and evidence with victims’ families.
3. Police Training: Implement mandatory training on human rights, de-escalation, and
proportionate use of force to reduce reliance on lethal measures.
4. Judicial Reforms: Address judicial delays through fast-track courts for serious crimes,
reducing the perceived need for encounters as a shortcut to justice.
5. Public Awareness: Promote campaigns to educate citizens on the importance of due
process and the dangers of endorsing extrajudicial killings.
6. International Compliance: Ratify the UNCAT and align encounter practices with
ICCPR standards to enhance India’s global human rights standing.

CONCLUSION
The legal framework governing police encounters in India, encompassing constitutional
protections, statutory provisions, and judicial guidelines, aims to balance public safety with
individual rights. However, the prevalence of fake encounters, impunity, and political support
for such actions undermine the rule of law and constitutional guarantees. High-profile cases
and statistical data reveal systemic issues, including weak oversight and public endorsement of
retributive justice. By implementing robust reforms, strengthening accountability, and fostering
a culture of due process, India can align its police practices with democratic principles and
international human rights standards, ensuring justice for both victims and the accused.

8
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
• PUCL v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) SCC.
• Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) SCC.
• Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) SCC.
• National Human Rights Commission Guidelines, 1997 & 2010.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
• LawChakra, "Police Encounters Legal in India? Understanding the Law and
Controversies," 2025.
• International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, "Fake Police Encounter,"
2021.
• India Today, "Police encounters: No separate laws, but SC and NHRC have laid down
strict guidelines," 2023.
• Drishti IAS, "In Depth: Encounter- Supreme Court Guidelines," 2025.