Allahabad HC slams UP police on encounter killings: ‘Vertical loyalty’ runs towards ‘ruling’ govt, not constitution

Allahabad HC Slams UP Police Over Encounter Killings

Allahabad HC slams UP police on encounter – The Allahabad High Court has sharply criticized the Uttar Pradesh police for their handling of encounter killings, accusing them of prioritizing political loyalty over constitutional principles. This latest ruling comes amid growing concerns about the systemic bias in law enforcement practices, particularly in cases where suspects are arrested without due process. The court emphasized that the vertical loyalty of officers is increasingly directed toward the ruling government rather than the rule of law, according to a report by Bar and Bench. By highlighting these issues, the court aims to hold the police accountable for their actions and restore public trust in judicial oversight.

Vertical Loyalty and Institutional Bias

Justice Diwakar, delivering the judgment, pointed out that the Uttar Pradesh police have become a tool for political dominance, especially in a state that plays a pivotal role in national politics. The court criticized the administration for fostering an environment where officers adjust their conduct based on the preferences of higher authorities, often at the expense of impartial justice. This pattern, the bench argued, is rooted in the feudal mindset of politicians and bureaucrats who view the police as an extension of their power. The ruling underscores how vertical loyalty—where subordinates prioritize the interests of their superiors—has eroded the constitutional duty of the police to uphold the law fairly.

One of the key arguments presented in the judgment is that the police force in Uttar Pradesh is frequently assigned to areas or roles that align with the ruling party’s agenda. Officers who show independence or skepticism toward the government are often transferred to less influential districts, while those who support the administration are given favorable postings. This system, the court noted, creates a culture of fear and complicity, where law enforcement agencies hesitate to act decisively against political figures. The result is a series of encounter killings that appear to serve the interests of the ruling government rather than the public good.

Examples of Judicial Concerns

The bench cited several instances to illustrate its concerns about the police’s actions. These included cases where arrests were made without proper legal documentation, FIRs were selectively registered or suppressed to manipulate the narrative, and preventive detention laws were applied arbitrarily. Such practices, according to the court, have been observed over a period of years and are indicative of a broader trend of institutional bias. The ruling also drew attention to the lack of transparency in these operations, suggesting that the police often operate without sufficient scrutiny from judicial or civil society watchdogs.

One particularly notable example mentioned in the judgment is the use of force in situations where the legal procedures are not fully followed. The court highlighted how this has led to the premature death of suspects, raising questions about the proportionality of the response. By emphasizing these cases, the judiciary aims to draw a clear line between legitimate law enforcement and politically motivated violence. The ruling also calls for greater oversight mechanisms to ensure that the police act within the bounds of the law, rather than as agents of the ruling party.

Impact on Justice and Public Trust

The court’s criticism of the UP police has significant implications for the justice system in the state. By attributing the biased enforcement to the influence of the ruling government, the bench highlights a fundamental flaw in the way authority is exercised within the police force. This vertical loyalty, it argues, undermines the independence of judicial institutions and allows political interests to override legal obligations. The judgment serves as a reminder that the police, as a constitutional body, must remain neutral and accountable to the law, not to the whims of political power.

Moreover, the court’s focus on the rule of law signals a growing awareness of the need for institutional reform. It stresses that encounter killings should be subject to rigorous legal scrutiny to ensure they are not used as a means of silencing dissent or eliminating political opponents. The ruling also calls for the state government to provide a clear framework for the use of preventive detention and other emergency measures, ensuring they are applied only when necessary and justified. This emphasis on transparency and accountability is critical for rebuilding public confidence in the police and the judicial system.

Following the judgment, there has been a surge in public discourse about the role of the police in UP. Critics argue that the ruling exposes the deep-rooted political influence on law enforcement, while supporters believe it highlights the challenges faced by the judiciary in maintaining independence. The court’s decision is expected to prompt a reevaluation of the police’s operational procedures and their relationship with the ruling government. As the state government responds to the criticism, the focus will remain on whether the police can be held to constitutional standards or if their actions will continue to reflect the priorities of the ruling authorities.