Allahabad High Court Slams ‘Shoot-on-the-Leg’ Culture in UP Police, Issues Strict Guidelines on Encounter Cases
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court on Friday strongly criticized the growing practice among Uttar Pradesh police personnel of shooting accused persons in the leg—particularly just below the knee—allegedly to gain quick promotions, praise from senior officials, and attention on social media platforms.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made these sharp observations while granting bail to an accused named Raju alias Rajkumar, who had been shot in the leg during a police encounter.
The court noted that in his case, the mandatory guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties) vs State of Maharashtra judgment were not followed.
The judge made it clear that such acts of police firing are completely unacceptable in the eyes of the law.
“The authority to punish an accused lies with the judiciary, not with the police,” the court said.
India is a democratic nation governed by the Constitution, which clearly separates the powers of the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
In the name of appreciation or for personal gain, police officers cannot be allowed to take over the role of courts by punishing accused persons through unnecessary firing, even if the injury is caused to a non-vital part of the body.”
Following an earlier order dated January 28, the Additional Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, Sanjay Prasad, and the Director General of Police (DGP), Rajeev Krishna, appeared before the court through video conferencing.
They informed the court that circulars had been issued by the DGP on August 1, 2017, and October 11, 2024, to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions regarding police encounters that result in death or serious injury.
However, the High Court was not satisfied with their explanation. Justice Deshwal then issued a detailed set of fresh guidelines, strictly based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the PUCL case.
Key Directions Issued by the High Court
First, the court ordered that whenever a police encounter takes place in which firearms are used, a nd any accused or individual suffers grievous injury, an FIR must be immediately registered by the head of the police team involved.
This FIR should be lodged at the same police station or a nearby one.
However, the investigation must not be conducted by the same police unit.
Instead, it should be handled by the CBCID or a separate police team from another station, under the supervision of a senior officer at least one rank above the officer who led the encounter.
Second, the court clarified that the FIR does not need to name individual police officers as accused or suspects. It is sufficient to mention the police team involved, such as the STF or the regular police unit.
Third, the injured person—whether accused or any other victim—must be given immediate medical treatment.
After medical examination, their statement must be recorded by a Magistrate or a Medical Officer, along with a formal certificate declaring the person medically fit to give a statement.
After the investigation is completed, the final report must be submitted to the competent court, which will then proceed as per the Supreme Court’s directions in the PUCL judgment.
No Quick Rewards After Encounters
The High Court also strictly directed that no out-of-turn promotions or gallantry awards should be given to police officers immediately after an encounter.
Such rewards should only be granted after a thorough inquiry by a specially constituted committee under the police department, which must conclusively establish that the officer’s actions were genuinely courageous and lawful.
Right to Complain Against Abuse
The court further ruled that if the family of an injured person believes that proper procedures were not followed, or that the investigation lacked independence or fairness, they have the right to approach the Sessions Judge of the concerned district.
The Sessions Judge will examine the complaint and take appropriate steps to address the grievance.
Strict Warning to Police Leadership
In a strong warning, the High Court stated that if any district police unit is found violating the Supreme Court’s encounter guidelines, not only the officer leading the encounter team but also the district’s top police officer—whether SP, SSP, or Commissioner—will be held liable for contempt of court.
Disciplinary action by the police department will also follow.
The court also reminded that, as per the PUCL judgment, aggrieved persons can seek legal remedy before the Sessions Judge.
In serious cases of violation, the Sessions Judge may refer the matter to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against senior police officials.
Through these directions, the Allahabad High Court has sent a strong message that encounter culture, staged shootings, and misuse of power in the name of law enforcement will not be tolerated in a constitutional democracy.
#AllahabadHighCourt #PoliceEncounters #UPPolice #RuleOfLaw #JudicialOversight #HumanRights #PUCLGuidelines #EncounterCulture #PoliceAccountability #IndianJudiciary #ConstitutionalValues #LawAndOrder
