Judiciary vs. Extrajudicial Action: Allahabad High Court Issues Landmark Guidelines to Curb ‘Half-Encounters’ in Uttar Pradesh
In a significant judicial intervention aimed at upholding the rule of law, the Allahabad High Court has issued a stern rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh Police over the rising trend of so-called “half-encounters”—incidents where suspects are shot in the legs or non-vital parts of the body during apprehension.
Delivering a powerful verdict on January 31, 2026, a single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal asserted that the power to penalize lies solely with the courts. “Punishing criminals is the exclusive prerogative of the judiciary, not the police,” the court remarked, emphasizing that police officers cannot moonlight as judges and executioners.
The ‘Shooting in Legs’ Trend: A Threat to Democracy
The High Court expressed grave concern over the pattern of suspects receiving bullet wounds in their lower limbs, often under the guise of self-defense. The court noted that these incidents are frequently orchestrated to:
Secure Promotions: Boost service records with “bravery” markers.
Gain Publicity: Garner praise or social media attention.
Intimidate Suspects: Delivery of “instant justice” to teach the accused a lesson.
Justice Deshwal reminded the executive that India is a democratic state where the Separation of Powers is a core constitutional principle. Police encroaching upon judicial functions, he stated, is a direct assault on the Constitution.
Mandatory Six-Point Guidelines for UP Police
To ensure accountability and transparency, the Allahabad High Court has laid down a strict six-point framework that must be followed in every instance of a police encounter:
Supreme Court Compliance: Absolute adherence to the PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra judgment regarding encounter protocols.
Mandatory FIRs: Immediate registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in every case involving death or serious injury during police action.
Judicial Statements: The statements of injured suspects must be recorded specifically before a Magistrate or a Medical Officer.
Independent Investigation: Encounters must be investigated by an officer who holds a higher rank than the leader of the police team involved.
No ‘Targeting’ Instructions: A categorical ban on any verbal or written orders to target non-vital body parts or to misrepresent incidents as encounters.
Direct Liability for Leadership: SPs, SSPs, and Police Commissioners will be held personally liable for any violations of these guidelines, facing potential contempt of court proceedings.
Case Context: Disproportionality in Mirzapur
The ruling came during the bail hearings for Raju alias Rajkumar and two others. The court observed a striking anomaly: while the suspects were shot, not a single police officer sustained injuries in these supposed crossfires.
The state government’s failure to record the suspects’ statements before a magistrate and the initial assignment of a junior sub-inspector to investigate the case were flagged as clear violations of the law.
Accountability at the Top
The court has demanded a formal clarification from the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Home Secretary regarding whether any “hidden” instructions exist that encourage shooting suspects in the legs. While the DGP has assured the court of future compliance, the High Court has made it clear that the era of self-styled “encounter specialists” must give way to the rule of law.
“Police cannot take the law into their own hands. Any attempt to bypass the judicial process is a serious violation of constitutional principles.” — Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal
