[1.2] The basic structure of the constitution has not been violated.

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the acts of Police officers have not violated any
of the basic structure of the constitution of Indica because of the police officers were exercising their
functions as prescribed in the Indica Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure. The police officers in
exercising their inherent powers had to indulge in police engagements which ultimately led to the death
of the accused in the rare circumstances.

[1.2.1] The police officers were only acting in their official capacity and did not have any mala fide
intention to cause the death of the accused

In such circumstances, while the police have to do their legal duty of arresting the criminals, they have
also to protect themselves1. The requirement of sanction to prosecute affords protection to the
policemen, who are sometimes required to take drastic action against criminals to protect life and
property of the people and to protect themselves against attack 2. Unless unimpeachable evidence is on
record to establish that their action is indefensible, mala fide and vindictive, they cannot be subjected to
prosecution.3

The true test as to whether a public servant was acting or purporting to act in discharge of his duties
would be whether the act complained of was directly connected with his official duties or it was done in
the discharge of his official duties or it was so integrally connected with or attached to his office as to be
inseparable from it4. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable
connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient
ground to deprive the public servant of the protection. 5 

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that all the deceased persons were known hard-core
criminals and gangsters and almost all of them were accused of offences that were punishable by death
or life imprisonment and they wanted to resist their arrests. It is further contended that there is no
practice of encounters as alleged by the petitioners and that in a situation which is forced upon the
policemen who have arrived only to perform their lawful duties and in order to arrest the wanted
criminals, it is the criminals who precipitated the situation where the Police Officers have no other
choice but to use force, firstly, in discharge of their lawful duties and secondly, in exercise of their right
of private defence. 

The criminals' reputation for violence would generate a belief in the mind of the police officers of
impending attack by the gangsters on his person and in most circumstances it is unreasonable to expect
the police officers exercising the right of private defence to act with commonest and deliberation when
dealing with the criminals of dangerous disposition and that when confronted by a dreaded gangster, an
ordinary citizen will not even dare to challenge him, but, however, according to him, a police officer is in
duty bound to tackle the weapon wielding desperado or the dreaded gangster and that if he does not do
so, he can be charged with override attitude and that if these protections and immunity were not
afforded, the society will not get any one to enforce the law. He has stated further that there will be

1
Brijlala Prasad Sinha vs State of Bihar, [1998] 2 ALD Cri 409; [1998] 1 BLJR 299
2
People’s Union of Civil Liberties vs State of Maharashtra, [1999] 4 BomCR 608
3
Om Prakash vs. State of Jharkhand, [2012] 12 SCC 72
4
K Satwant Singh vs State of Punjab, [1960] 2 SCR 89
5
State of Orrisa vs Ganesh Chandra Jew,[2004] 8 SCC 40
very few that he would like to decide on the path to overcome a situation if they were held answerable
later on the that such a situation will bestow legitimacy with possible cowardice which is loath to police
functioning.6

[1.2.2] The basic structure of the doctrine of Seperation of powers and Rule of law has not been
violated.

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the acts of police officers never violated the
basic structure of Seperation of powers 7 provided by the Indian Constitution because the executive
never acted in a manner which was outside the purview of their powers and functions. The
engagements that led to the deaths of various accused was exercised within the powers conferred to
them by the IPC and CrPC.

The doctorine of Seperation of Powers has not been absolutely recognized in the Indian constitution but
Legislative, Executive and Judiciary have to function within their respective spheres demarcated under
the constitution.8 In the case of Indira Gandhi and Raj Narain, Justice DY Chandrachud asserted that,
“the political purpose of the doctrine of separation of powers is not widely recognised. No provision can
be implemented without the system of of checks and balances. This is a principle of of restraining which
has in its percept, innate in the prudence of self-preservation that discretion is better than valor.”

Thus in the present case the acts of police officers never violated the seperation of powers as the act
was totally done in the exercise of private defence and these hardcore criminals who did not shy to kill
even policemen were a big threat to public and society if they absconded. In order to ensure the security
of the state, the police were compelled to engage in situations which was forced upon by the criminals
and despite acting intra vires of their powers and avoiding the remotest possibility of any casualty, the
engagement led to the deaths of criminals in rare cases.

[1.3] The act of Police does not violate the human rights.

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court the act of Police officers of Unkar Pradesh has not
violated any human rights of the people because all the guidelines as mandated by the Supreme court of
Indica in the case of PUCL and Dk Basu were promptly followed in the situations and the the act of police
was well prescribed in the procedure established by law.

The bench in the case of PUCL vs Union of India held that “ killings in police encounters require
independent investigation. The killings in police encounters affect the credibility of the rule of law and
the administration of the criminal justice system.” The NHRC in 1993 laid down that within 24 hours of
the occurrence of any encounter or custodial death, the commission should be informed. Also the
NHRC, has laid down two situations where death can be caused by the police officers firstly if the death
is caused for the right to private defence against the accused and secondly if the death is caused by use
of force that was necessary to arrest a person accused of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life.

In the present case it is clear that the all the deaths were results of the police engagements which were
forced on the police officers and the police had to cause death in some cases in exercising their right to
6
People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs State of Maharashtra, [1999] 4 BomCR 608
7
Montesquieu, Espirit des Lois, ( The Spirit of Laws) , 1785
8
Asif Hameed vs State of Jammu and Kashmir, [1989] AIR 1899, [1989] SCR (3) 19
private defence and also all the accused were charged with offences punishable with death or
imprisonment of life. It can be thus said that there has not been any acts outside the purview of powers
and functions of the police and no human rights violation has taken place.

Moreover in the Indian Criminal justice system, the onus of proof lies with the prosecution 9 and in the
present case, no intrinsic evidence is present to prosecute the police officials. In the case of Rubabbudin
Shaikh vs State of Gujarat10, it was held that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on
the basis of moral conviction or suspicion alone. The act of punishing the police officials in the present
case would lead to miscarriage of justice on the part of police because they just had to choose
extraordinary remedies for extraordinary situations. 11

On the basis of above arguments mentioned and authorities cited, it is humbly contended before the
honourable court that no act of police officers led to violation of any fundamental provisions of the
constitution as they were acting intra vires of what was provided by the statues of the country and
totally acted in good faith to give the accused the fair chance of reverting back and in some cases death
was caused to the accused.

9
Sanjay Dutt vs State, [1994] SCC 5 410
10
Rubabbudin Shaikh vs State of Gujrat, [2010] 2 SCC 200
11
Shambhu Nath Mehra vs State of Ajmer, [1956] SCR 199; Prithpal Singh vs State of Punjab, [2012] 1 SCC 10