The Allahabad High Court has taken a stern view of violations of Supreme Court-mandated procedures in police encounter cases, holding that responsibility will extend beyond the officers directly involved in the operation to include the district police chief. The court has made it clear that in cases of death or grievous injury during an encounter, failure to follow the prescribed process could render not only the encounter team but also the Superintendent of Police (SP), Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) or Police Commissioner liable for contempt of court.
The observation was made while hearing a petition relating to a police encounter in which the petitioner had suffered serious injuries. After examining the record, the court found that the mandatory safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in the PUCL vs State judgment had not been followed.
The High Court underscored that the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court are binding on all states and police authorities, and any deviation from them undermines the rule of law. It further clarified that such lapses may attract departmental action in addition to contempt proceedings, particularly when senior officers fail to ensure compliance by personnel under their command.
According to the court, the case before it revealed serious procedural lapses. Despite the petitioner being grievously injured in the encounter, the police neither recorded his statement before a medical officer nor ensured that it was taken in the presence of an executive magistrate, as required under the Supreme Court’s directions. The absence of these safeguards, the court noted, struck at the very foundation of transparency and accountability in encounter-related investigations.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
The High Court reiterated that in every case of death or serious injury during a police encounter, an independent and impartial investigation is mandatory. This includes the prompt registration of a First Information Report (FIR), proper documentation of medical evidence, and investigation under the supervision of senior officers who are not connected with the encounter team. These measures, the court said, are essential to ensure that the legality of police action can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Expressing concern over what it described as a recurring pattern, the court observed that in several cases encounter-related procedures are reduced to mere formalities, defeating the spirit of the Supreme Court’s guidelines. It emphasised that senior police officers cannot evade responsibility by shifting the blame solely onto field-level personnel.
The court held that if district-level police leadership fails to enforce compliance with binding judicial directions, accountability must be fixed at the command level as well. “Supervisory officers are duty-bound to ensure that constitutional safeguards are followed in letter and spirit,” the court observed.
Taking note of the systemic implications, the High Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP) and the State Home Secretary to file a response clarifying whether clear and written instructions have been issued to the police force to ensure compliance in encounter cases involving death or grievous injury.
The court specifically sought details on whether directions exist mandating:
- compulsory registration of FIRs in such cases,
- proper recording of statements of injured persons, and
- independent investigation by officers senior to those involved in the encounter.
The court also asked the state authorities to explain how compliance with these directions is monitored and what punitive measures are prescribed in cases of violation.
Reiterating the intent behind the Supreme Court’s ruling in the PUCL case, the High Court observed that the guidelines were not framed to paralyse legitimate police action but to eliminate the possibility of fake or staged encounters and to protect citizens’ fundamental rights. In a constitutional democracy, the court said, the police must operate strictly within the framework of law.
Legal experts view the order as a significant development in reinforcing accountability in encounter cases. They noted that by explicitly extending potential liability to district police chiefs, the High Court has sent a strong message that adherence to constitutional and judicial safeguards is not optional and that responsibility cannot be confined to officers on the ground.
The matter will be taken up for further consideration after the DGP and Home Secretary place their responses on record, following which the court is expected to decide on the next course of action.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
