Vidhi Pratap Singh, Gujarat National Law University
ABSTRACT
Encounter killings, also known as extrajudicial killings, have been a matter of concern in India for several decades. This paper explores the legal framework and landmark judgments related to encounter killings in India, drawing comparisons with legal frameworks in the United Kingdom and the United States. In India, encounter killings often occur when police officers claim to have shot a suspect in self-defence or in an attempt to prevent them from escaping. The Supreme Court of India has addressed this issue through various judgments, including the 2014 case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized that police officers should resort to the use of arms only when it is necessary to protect human life. However, despite the court’s directives, encounter killings continue to occur in India. The recent case of Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2017) highlighted the need for the government to take strict measures to prevent such killings and to ensure accountability for police officers involved in them. In the UK, the Human Rights Act of 1998 ensures that any use of force is proportionate to the threat posed and is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. In the US, the landmark case of Tennessee v. Garner (1985) established the principle of “objective reasonableness” for the use of deadly force by police officers. In India, encounter killings remain a serious issue despite the legal framework and judicial directives to prevent them. India must establish a more stringent legal framework and an independent agency to investigate encounter killings to ensure the preservation of human rights and due process in the legal system.
Keywords: police shooting, police encounter, extrajudicial killings
Comments