The Lift Line
“A government asking to be judged on sexual violence should be judged by convictions secured, not bodies produced” (Jhuma Sen, The Indian Express, 30 October 2026)
Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam
In the news: Two men accused in separate crimes died in police firing in West Bengal on 26-27 October 2026, each during a reconstruction of the crime; according to press reports, the police said each had snatched a service revolver. On 27 October, Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari said the police have “full freedom” to establish the rule of law. In a column published on 30 October 2026, Jhuma Sen asks what happens when the state kills in the name of protection.
The writer is described in the paper as follows: “The writer is an advocate at the Calcutta High Court”. For police reform on this site, see our report on the Supreme Court’s hearing on Jharkhand’s DGP rules and The Indian Express column on protest policing and police reform.
UPSC relevance:
- GS Paper 2: fundamental rights (Article 21); the judiciary’s role in protecting them; police as a State subject; statutory bodies such as the NHRC; police reform.
- GS Paper 4: ends and means in public administration; accountability of public servants; the ethics of “instant justice”.
- Prelims: Article 21 and Article 141; entries 1 and 2 of the State List; Section 196 of the BNSS, 2023; the NHRC under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; the PUCL (2014) and Prakash Singh (2006) judgments.
- Essay and Interview: rule of law versus popular justice; the state as the only witness to its own conduct.
The Crux in 60 Words
After two accused died in police firing in West Bengal, Jhuma Sen argues that the law on encounter deaths is settled but has been reduced to paperwork that follows the killing. A government’s open grant of freedom to the police, she writes, suspends Article 21 by announcement. Her remedy: independent investigation, published inquiries and the police reform Prakash Singh ordered.
The law on deaths in police encounters is settled, Jhuma Sen argues, but compliance has become paperwork, and a government that openly grants the police freedom of action suspends Article 21 ‘by announcement’.
- In her view the inquiry that follows each encounter ‘is now part of the choreography’, as predictable as the snatched revolver in the police account.
- She argues that the licence is claimed in women’s name, treating women as kin to be avenged rather than as persons with a right to the investigation and trial of violence against them.
- An encounter, she writes, ‘substitutes the accused’s death for the trial that accountability requires’, so that no one asks how many rape cases have ‘a forensic report, charge sheet or trial date’.
- She traces the problem to a practice that, in her words, ‘passed intact between governments’ (‘May changed the party, not the police’), and to the Prakash Singh (2006) reforms she says were never seriously constituted.
In both West Bengal cases the police said the accused snatched a service revolver during a reconstruction, which is a claim of self-defence; the facts are contested and are for an independent inquiry, not a column, to test. A government can also argue that its words were about the rule of law: the Chief Minister warned that anyone taking the law into their own hands would not be spared.
Sen proposes a murder FIR in each case investigated by an agency outside the state police, a judicial magistrate’s inquiry with published findings and a protocol barring reconstructions at night, without restraint or without a camera. Our analysis: begin with full compliance with the PUCL requirements and the NHRC’s reporting rule, and complete the police reforms ordered in Prakash Singh.
Background and Context
What was reported in West Bengal
Every detail of the two deaths below comes from press reports, and most of it is the police’s version as those reports give it.
| Gaighata, North 24 Parganas | Dhuliyan, Murshidabad | |
|---|---|---|
| The accused | Prahlad Das, arrested on 25 October for the alleged rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl | Samaul Sheikh, 35, accused in the killing of BJP worker Sujit Mondal |
| When | After midnight, on the night of 26-27 October: “Late on Monday night, the cops took Prahlad to reconstruct the crime ... While returning after 12 am” (Deccan Chronicle) | Afternoon of 27 October: “at around 2.30 pm to make him re-enact the crime” (Deccan Chronicle) |
| Police account | He “snatched a service revolver”; the post-mortem found “three bullet injuries” (Deccan Chronicle) | Police said he too snatched a revolver: “Another inspector-rank cop immediately fired three rounds” (Deccan Chronicle) |
National Herald reported that “Three men have been killed in police encounters in West Bengal over the past three months”, counting a similar incident in Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, in July. The Deccan Chronicle called Dhuliyan “the third encounter after BJP came to power in the state”. As National Herald reported, Ranjit Sur, vice-president of the rights group APDR, asked “why a detainee had been taken out at midnight for reconstruction with his hands apparently unrestrained”.
What the Chief Minister said
All India Radio reported on 28 October: “West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has said that the police have full freedom to take necessary decisions to establish the rule of law in the state. He warned that anyone taking the law into their own hands would not be spared.” He spoke after a meeting at the state police headquarters, Bhavani Bhavan, on 27 October.
The law already on the books
PUCL v State of Maharashtra (decided 23 September 2014). A Bench of Chief Justice R.M. Lodha and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman set out its requirements in paragraph 31 and directed in paragraph 33 that they “must be strictly observed in all cases of death and grievous injury in police encounters by treating them as law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.” The core of them:
| No. | Requirement, in the judgment’s terms |
|---|---|
| 2 | An FIR on a death caused by a police firearm, forwarded to the court under Section 157 CrPC |
| 3 | “An independent investigation ... shall be conducted by the CID or police team of another police station under the supervision of a senior officer (at least a level above the head of the police party engaged in the encounter)” |
| 4 | “A Magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code must invariably be held in all cases of death which occur in the course of police firing” |
| 5 | Information of the incident “without any delay must be sent to NHRC or the State Human Rights Commission, as the case may be” |
| 12 | Compensation under Section 357-A CrPC |
| 15 | “No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards” |
| 16 | Recourse by complaint to the Sessions Judge |
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v State of Assam (28 May 2025). In the context of alleged encounters in Assam, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the Gauhati High Court’s judgment of 27 January 2023 and the order of 12 January 2022 of the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC), and decided “to entrust the inquiry of this matter to the AHRC ... for necessary inquiry into the allegations independently and expeditiously, in accordance with law”.
Section 196, BNSS, 2023. When a person “dies or disappears” while in police custody, “in addition to the inquiry or investigation held by the police, an inquiry shall be held by the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed.” The Magistrate shall, “wherever practicable”, inform the relatives of the deceased and allow them to be present.
The NHRC’s rules. The Commission issued detailed guidelines on 2 December 2003 and modified them on 12 May 2010; since May 2010, “every death in police action has to be reported to NHRC within 48 hours of the incident.”
Prakash Singh v Union of India (22 September 2006). Its directions include a State Security Commission to ensure that the State Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the State police, a Director General of Police chosen from the three seniormost officers empanelled by the UPSC with a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of the date of superannuation, a Police Establishment Board and a National Security Commission.
The Analysis
The writer’s argument
The law is settled; compliance is ritual. “The law is settled; compliance has become paperwork that follows the body to the morgue,” Sen writes. The inquiry “is now part of the choreography”, following the shooting as predictably as the snatched revolver precedes it: in Michael Taussig’s phrase for a public secret, “A story nobody is asked to believe and everybody is asked to accept.”
Article 21 suspended by announcement. She reads the Chief Minister’s grant of freedom to the police as “a theory of the state in which Article 21 is suspended by announcement, with the announcement certifying its own lawfulness”.
Protection in women’s name. “The licence is claimed in women’s name,” she argues, casting women as kin to be avenged rather than as persons with a right to the investigation and trial of violence against them; “the encounter substitutes the accused’s death for the trial that accountability requires.” The practice, she adds, “passed intact between governments”: “May changed the party, not the police.”
Her remedy. Reform “must sever the relation the Chief Minister celebrates”, through the security commissions, fixed tenures and complaints authorities Prakash Singh intended, and through “a murder FIR in each case investigated by an agency outside the state police, a judicial magistrate’s inquiry with published findings, and a protocol barring reconstructions at night, without restraint or without a camera.”
Reading the law the column cites
- PUCL (2014) asks for an investigation by the CID or another police station’s team, not an agency outside the state police, and not a murder FIR in every case; those are Sen’s proposals.
- Jwadder (2025) did not order an inquiry into a pattern of encounters: it sent the allegations to the Assam Human Rights Commission. Its line “fake encounters are extra-judicial killings and must be subject to strict legal scrutiny” is the Court’s account of PUCL.
- Section 196 of the BNSS says “the Magistrate”, not a judicial magistrate, and speaks of deaths in police custody; whether it reaches a shooting during a reconstruction is for the courts.
Where the column is strong, and where it stops
- Strong: it starts from law that already binds every police force, and its test, convictions secured rather than bodies produced, is one any government can be held to. It also joins the rights of the accused to those of women victims, whose claim is to a certain investigation and a trial.
- It stops short on facts. The column treats both deaths as killings by design. On the public record there is the police’s account and the objections of rights groups, and testing one against the other is what an independent inquiry is for.
- It mixes law and proposal, so an answer should keep what the Court requires apart from what the writer wants.
Way forward
- Comply with PUCL and the NHRC guidelines in full, every time, so that an outside body sees each death in police action.
- Make inquiries visible. Sen’s case for published findings rests on public confidence: an inquiry nobody sees reassures nobody.
- Complete police reform as Prakash Singh directed, and write rules for reconstructions into police manuals; Sen proposes barring them at night, without restraint or without a camera.
- Measure the response to crime by forensic reports, charge sheets and convictions, the record a government should be judged on.
Data and Institutions Vault
Prelims-grade facts:
The peg:
- Two accused died in police firing in West Bengal on 26-27 October 2026, at Gaighata (North 24 Parganas) and Dhuliyan (Murshidabad), as reported
- Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari: police have “full freedom” to establish the rule of law (AIR, 28 October 2026)
The Constitution:
- Article 21: no deprivation of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law
- Article 141: law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts
- Seventh Schedule, List II: entry 1 public order; entry 2 police (subject to entry 2A of List I)
The judgments:
- PUCL v State of Maharashtra, decided 23 September 2014: 16 requirements for deaths in police encounters, binding under Article 141
- PUCL’s independent investigation: by the CID or a police team of another police station, under an officer at least a level above the head of the police party
- Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v State of Assam, 28 May 2025: inquiry into alleged encounters entrusted to the Assam Human Rights Commission
- Prakash Singh v Union of India, 22 September 2006, W.P.(C) 310 of 1996: directions include a State Security Commission
- Prakash Singh on the DGP: chosen from the three seniormost officers empanelled by UPSC; tenure of at least 2 years
Statute and institutions:
- BNSS, 2023, Section 196: Magistrate’s inquiry when a person dies or disappears in police custody; it replaced CrPC Section 176
- NHRC: set up 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; human rights defined in Section 2(1)(d)
- NHRC guidelines: issued 2 December 2003, modified 12 May 2010; since May 2010, every death in police action reported within 48 hours
⚠️ Watch the trap:
- PUCL’s investigating team is the CID or another police station’s team, not an agency outside the state police
- Section 196 says “the Magistrate”, not “judicial magistrate”
- Jwadder sent the matter to the State Human Rights Commission, not the NHRC
- “Police” and “public order” are State List subjects, not Concurrent
The Debate
| The case against encounters, as the column makes it | The other side, and its limits |
|---|---|
| The law is settled, and the inquiry has become ritual that follows every killing | The police say each accused snatched a service revolver; that is a claim of self-defence, and only an independent inquiry can test it |
| An open grant of freedom to the police signals impunity | The Chief Minister framed his words as the rule of law and warned against anyone taking the law into their own hands |
| An encounter replaces the trial that victims of sexual violence are owed | Public anger after brutal crimes is real; the answer the law gives it is a fast investigation and a fast trial, not a shortcut |
| Accountability needs an agency outside the state police | PUCL already prescribes the CID or another police station’s team; an outside agency would need a law and resources |
Balanced verdict: Sen is right that settled law means little if every step can be completed as a formality, and her test of convictions over bodies is a fair one. But the facts of both deaths are still contested, and an answer should rest the case on the PUCL requirements and Article 21, not on the column’s account of motive.
How to Think About This
- Ask who investigates. When the state is both the shooter and the investigator, independence is the whole question; that is why PUCL sends the case to another team and to a Magistrate.
- Separate the claim from the finding. “Police said” is the start of an inquiry, not its result, whichever way it points.
- Judge means as well as ends. Speed against crime is a legitimate goal; a killing without trial is not a lawful means to it (Article 21: “procedure established by law”).
Diagram-in-Words
Death in police firing → FIR, forwarded to the court → independent investigation (CID or another police station’s team, under a senior officer) → magisterial inquiry (Section 176 CrPC, now Section 196 BNSS) → information to the NHRC or State commission → compensation, or a complaint to the Sessions Judge
Read it left to right: this is the chain PUCL requires; the column’s charge is that every link is now completed as a formality after the shooting.
Encounter killings are often defended as swift justice. Examine the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in PUCL v State of Maharashtra (2014) for deaths in police encounters, and discuss why such deaths continue despite them. (250 words)
A death in a police encounter places the state in two roles at once: the party that fired and the agency that investigates. That is why such deaths test Article 21 of the Constitution, under which no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
In PUCL v State of Maharashtra (23 September 2014), a Bench of Chief Justice R.M. Lodha and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman laid down sixteen requirements for every death in a police encounter and made them binding as law declared under Article 141. They include an FIR forwarded to the court; an independent investigation by the CID or a police team of another police station, supervised by an officer at least a level above the head of the police party; a magisterial inquiry in every death in police firing, under Section 176 of the CrPC, whose place Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 now takes; information to the NHRC or the State Human Rights Commission without delay; compensation; and no out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry reward.
Since May 2010, the NHRC’s guidelines (first issued in 2003) require every death in police action to be reported to it within 48 hours. In Arif Md.
Yeasin Jwadder v State of Assam (28 May 2025), the Supreme Court entrusted the inquiry into alleged encounters in Assam to the Assam Human Rights Commission. Such deaths persist where these steps are run as a formality by the same chain of command, where public approval rewards quick results, and because the structural reforms of Prakash Singh v Union of India (2006), such as State Security Commissions and a fixed two-year tenure for the DGP, insulate the police from political pressure only where they are implemented.
An encounter cannot replace a trial. Full compliance with the PUCL requirements, inquiries whose findings are made public, timely reporting to human rights commissions and police reform that frees investigation from political pressure would make the state answerable for every death at its hands, while the response to crime is measured by investigations completed and convictions secured.
Interview Angle
"You are the District Magistrate. An accused in a crime that has angered the whole district dies in police firing during a night-time reconstruction, and the crowd outside is cheering. What do you do in the first 48 hours?"
Takeaway Box
- The rule: PUCL v State of Maharashtra (2014) set requirements for every death in a police encounter, binding under Article 141.
- The statute: Section 196 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 176 CrPC) requires a Magistrate’s inquiry into a death in police custody.
- The watchdogs: every death in police action goes to the NHRC under its guidelines; in Jwadder (2025) the Supreme Court sent Assam’s alleged encounters to the State Human Rights Commission.
- The argument: in Sen’s words, a government should be judged by “convictions secured, not bodies produced”.
Sources:
- The Indian Express, Jhuma Sen, “What happens when the state kills in the name of protection?”, 30 October 2026
- All India Radio (newsonair.gov.in), on the West Bengal Chief Minister’s statement, 28 October 2026
- Deccan Chronicle, report on the Gaighata and Dhuliyan deaths, 27 October 2026
- National Herald, report on the West Bengal encounters, 27 October 2026
- Supreme Court of India, PUCL v State of Maharashtra, judgment of 23 September 2014
- Supreme Court of India, Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v State of Assam, SLP (Crl.) 7929 of 2023, judgment of 28 May 2025
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023), Section 196, Gazette of India
- National Human Rights Commission, About Us and Investigation Division pages
- PIB, Ministry of Home Affairs, on the Prakash Singh directives, 3 January 2018
- The Constitution of India, Article 21, Article 141 and the Seventh Schedule
Cite this page: Encounter Killings: PUCL Rules and Police Accountability — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
