A Critical Analysis of Extra Judicial Killings in India

The Indian Constitution provides equal rights to every citizen. Even although it's the 'Rule of
Law’, in a Democratic country, like India, it is dishonourable to say the rights of its citizens
are denied by its government workers itself, by way of Extra judicial killings (custodial
violence). So, it's a risk for democracy because it abuses the fundamental rights as well as
human rights towards the citizens of the nation. In extra judicial killings an alleged accused
has been killed before receiving the orders of such prosecution from the court of law also
known as Custodial Violence. This proportion of violence also violates the Articles 14,21,22
off the Indian Constitution.

To prevent the mockery of Indian Constitution this way, there have been guidelines issued by
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in encounter killings, these militate the rule of
law. The reasons for these killings lie in the corrupt electoral politics and flawed policing
vitiating the efficiency of the legal system of India. On of the major landmark judgement was
given in the brutal assault of a doctor in Hyderabad unleashed a rage, revealing a homicidal
public. Individuals requested the rapists be shot at sight since they were simply undeserving
of a reasonable trial and, it would appear, the police obliged. The Hyderabad rape case
appears a brutal shape of equity where the killing of an untried criminal is compared with due
process. Whereas the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has taken Suo Moto
cognisance of the matter, the tolerance appeared by the NHRC, and courts speaks to a rotate
towards momentary, and similarly flawed shapes of equity. This, in turn, makes a climate of
exemption for police powers which leads to the kill of innocent civilians.

Another case was in Om Prakash & Ors vs State of Jharkhand & Anr (2012), the Court ruled
that ‘it is not the duty of the police to slaughter the accused merely because he is a criminal’,
underlining the point that the Indian criminal justice system recognises and condemns
encounter killings as injudicious. In isolated decisions, the Supreme Court has underlined the
importance of a reasonable examination and the right to trial in delivering equity. To ensure
the proper to life and individual freedom, it is basic that the police work inside the ambit of
the law. In the’ event of a ‘encounter’ murdering, the Supreme Court has gone so distant as to
suggest the death penalty.
The police force has the right to injure or kill the criminal, for the sole and only purpose of
self-defence, under section 96 Indian Penal Code the Right to Private Defence to every
member, it is the right present by birth to every citizen of the Country. Although, Section 46
of the Indian Criminal Procedure Court allows police officials to use all means necessary' to
arrest a detainee or to control the situation only when means are necessary. The use of
excessive force than required may cause death.

CONCLUSION

To tackle the said situation the Government has imposed Guidelines to independently
investigate these heinous acts as an individual Probe and Strict and rigid penalties to be
applied to the people responsible, such as death penalty, life imprisonment etc. Ensuring
proper physical custody of the accused to prevent any attack by them on the police personnel.
Further, there is a dire need for complete overhauling of the criminal justice system and
bringing out required police reforms. As of now, India stands at the edge of a dangerous
incline: it is imperative that we begin holding the police responsible for their rebellion and
amend the criminal justice framework to modify the lost believe within the legal instruments
of the nation. The sanctity of stopping extrajudicial killings lies in the fact that they pose a
threat to the faith of people in the judicial system of India and sought to aid the corrupted
politicians and higher authorities of India that had hollowed the legal system of India. There
is a need for a criminal justice system that can act independently of partisan pressures and
bring out a qualitative change in the political security environment of India.

REFRENCES: -

1. Om Prakash & Ors vs State of Jharkhand & Anr (2012)

2. Akshat Bhushan, Extrajudicial Killings in India: Rule of Law v. Police Impunity,
JURIST – Student Commentary, July 30, 2020,
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/07/akshat-bhushan-extrajudicial-killings-
and-police-impunity/.

Name: - Bhavishya Gangwani

College and Year: - Alliance University Bangalore, 2nd Year (2020-25)