Back
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: on Rise, Does Not Approve
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has issued a stark warning about the escalating incidence of and in India, declaring that the unequivocally rejects such "" employed by law enforcement agencies. Speaking at a discourse on ethics in criminal litigation organized by the in New Delhi, Justice Bhuyan delivered a forceful critique of police practices that have come under increasing judicial scrutiny. His remarks come amid a growing body of observations questioning the stereotypical narratives used by police to justify , particularly in Uttar Pradesh.
A Disturbing Trend Resurfaces
Justice Bhuyan began by reflecting on his own assumptions about the state of custodial justice in India.
"I thought
was a thing of the past,"
he admitted.
"But I was forced to reconsider it.
are on the rise in India."
This candid acknowledgment underscores a broader concern within the judiciary that
against police brutality have weakened in recent years. The judge's comments resonate with data and reports from human rights organizations that document a surge in encounter killings, often justified by claims of self-defense or accidental deaths during police operations.
The judge zeroed in on a specific and troubling practice: the routine removal of accused persons from lock-ups in the dead of night for so-called "
." He questioned the ostensible urgency of such exercises, asking,
"Why do you have to take an accused in
to recreate a crime scene at 3 o'clock in the morning? Could you not have waited till sunrise? What is the grave urgency?"
The query cuts to the heart of a pattern that many criminal defense lawyers have long argued is a cover for extra-judicial executions.
Police Narratives Under Scrutiny
Justice Bhuyan cataloged the familiar justifications that often follow a death in custody: the accused attempted to snatch a rifle, a scuffle led to an accidental discharge, the prisoner was struck by a speeding truck, or—in one particularly egregious case—the accused was allegedly depressed and jumped into a well.
"Right thinking people are forced to think that is it a way to cover up the
, knowing fully well the outcome of trial, these
are adopted,"
he observed. The judge emphasized that such practices are fundamentally inconsistent with India's constitutional framework.
"Our constitutional system does not approve of these type of situations,"
he stated unequivocally.
His comments echo recent orders from the , which has taken an increasingly active role in exposing the formulaic narratives employed by the in encounter cases. The has repeatedly questioned the lack of independent investigation, the absence of body cameras, and the suspicious timing of many encounters. Justice Bhuyan's speech thus aligns with a broader judicial trend that seeks to hold law enforcement accountable to of and the under .
The Temperament of Police Officers
Beyond the mechanics of encounters, Justice Bhuyan also turned his attention to the demeanor of police officers themselves. He recalled earlier comments about police excesses against protesters, noting with alarm the visible anger displayed by young IPS officers while physically attacking demonstrators.
"But you see young IPS officers personally attacking demonstrators with so much anger on their face. What for? You are a professional police officer, why do you need to get so agitated? Beating up a demonstrator with bare hands,"
he said. This conduct, he warned, raises serious concerns about what might happen when such officers are granted custody of an accused person, particularly at night.
"One shudders to think what would happen if such a police officer gets custody at night. Can you imagine what would happen to an accused in
at night? Many of us are quite wary of sending people to
, not for nothing,"
he remarked.
These observations strike at the core of police culture and training. They suggest that the problem is not merely procedural but attitudinal, requiring a fundamental shift in how law enforcement views its role in a .
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
Justice Bhuyan's speech is not merely a moral condemnation; it carries significant implications for criminal litigation and . Defense lawyers can now cite his remarks as authoritative judicial commentary on the unreliability of police narratives in encounter cases. Prosecutors and investigating agencies will face heightened scrutiny when presenting evidence of deaths in custody. The judiciary itself may be emboldened to demand stricter compliance with safeguards such as , , and the preservation of .
The speech also reinforces the constitutional principle that the cannot justify means that violate . By framing as a "shortcut" to compensate for investigative failures, Justice Bhuyan has exposed a dangerous logic that undermines the . His call for accountability resonates with ongoing debates about police reforms, the need for a human rights-oriented approach to criminal justice, and the role of the judiciary as a guardian of .
Conclusion
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's address serves as a timely reminder that the does not sanction lawlessness in the name of crime control. As and continue to make headlines, the judiciary's willingness to speak out—and to act through orders like those of the —offers a ray of hope. But as the judge himself implied, systemic change requires more than judicial rhetoric. It demands a transformation in police training, accountability mechanisms, and the that has allowed these "" to flourish. For now, his words stand as a powerful rebuke to those who would sacrifice justice for expediency.
