Encounter killings and alleged extrajudicial executions must be subjected to thorough, independent and impartial investigations.
Back in 2014, the Supreme Court laid down a comprehensive set of guidelines aimed at protecting citizens against the arbitrary exercise of state power in cases of police encounters. The apex court emphasised the need for independent investigations, magisterial inquiries and the proper preservation of evidence and crime scenes, making accountability an essential component of any such investigation. However, the recent spurt in encounter killings suggests that these safeguards are not receiving the seriousness they deserve. What the authorities often appear to overlook is that a trigger-happy approach to governance is no indication of administrative strength; rather, it undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the state.
The real foundation of a peaceful society lies not in the indiscriminate use of force but in ensuring the welfare and security of its people. Effective implementation of welfare programmes, adequate employment opportunities for educated youth, accessible healthcare and proper sanitation facilities can go a long way towards addressing the underlying causes of social discontent and crime. When people are assured of dignity, opportunity and security, their confidence in the administration grows, creating an environment conducive to social harmony. By contrast, excessive use of police force can prove counterproductive, aggravating public resentment rather than addressing the circumstances that give rise to crime.
Equally disturbing is the increasingly familiar explanations offered in encounter cases: that an accused person attempted to escape from police custody while being taken to the crime scene for the reconstruction of the horrific incident. Such explanations have increasingly come under public scrutiny, raising more questions than they answer. Why, for instance, should an accused be taken to the crime scene for reconstruction in the middle of the night when the exercise could be conducted during daylight? More importantly, ensuring the safe custody of an accused person is a fundamental responsibility of law enforcement agencies, whether inside or outside prison premises. The authorities must explain how, in so many such instances, accused persons allegedly manage to overpower security personnel and snatch their firearms. These recurring accounts cannot be allowed to substitute for credible investigations and institutional accountability.
The Northeast has had ample experience of the limitations of a force-centric approach to administration. The region's history demonstrates that the use of coercive power can neither address the genuine grievances of the people nor bring the underlying causes of criminal and social unrest to the surface. Nor can the use of force serve as a substitute for dialogue, justice and responsive governance. Beyond its immediate consequences, the normalisation of extrajudicial violence also strikes at the moral and constitutional values upon which a democratic society rests.
Ultimately, the authority of the state derives not merely from its capacity to enforce the law but, more importantly, from its commitment to uphold it. Encounter killings and alleged extrajudicial executions must, therefore, be subjected to thorough, independent and impartial investigations. No individual, irrespective of the gravity of the offence alleged against them, can be deprived of the protection of due process. Preserving public confidence in the rule of law demands that accountability must never become a casualty of the state's exercise of power.