For nearly a decade, Uttar Pradesh has projected itself as a model of tough governance under the leadership of Yogi Adityanath. Central to this image has been the state’s ‘aggressive encounter policy’ – a policing strategy that supporters hail as a decisive response to crime and organised gangs. Yet the staggering statistics released by the state government itself raise a fundamental question: can a democracy celebrate a law-and-order model that increasingly appears to bypass the very rule of law it claims to uphold?
The Uttar Pradesh government recently disclosed that since March 2017, state police have carried out 17,043 encounters, averaging nearly five encounters every day. According to official figures, these operations resulted in the deaths of 289 alleged ‘hardened criminals’, injuries to 11,834 suspects, and the arrest of more than 34,000 individuals. Eighteen police personnel lost their lives, while 1,852 officers were injured during these operations.
The numbers are unprecedented in independent India. No other state has institutionalised encounter policing on such a scale. For the government, these figures are evidence of its uncompromising stand against crime. For critics, however, they reveal the normalisation of a dangerous policing culture where bullets increasingly substitute due process.
The Politics of Tough Policing
The political appeal of encounter policing is easy to understand. Crime, extortion, land grabbing, and gang violence have long plagued parts of Uttar Pradesh. Successive governments struggled to contain powerful criminal networks that often enjoyed political patronage.
Against this backdrop, the Yogi administration presented itself as a government willing to act decisively where others hesitated. Encounters became not merely police operations but a political message. They conveyed the image of a state reclaiming authority from criminals.
For many citizens frustrated with slow investigations, delayed trials, and an overburdened judiciary, such actions appeared attractive. The sight of notorious gangsters being arrested or killed generated public approval, particularly in regions that had suffered from criminal violence.
Yet popularity cannot be the sole measure of legitimacy in a constitutional democracy. Governments are judged not only by outcomes but also by the means they employ.
The Curious Pattern
One of the most striking features of Uttar Pradesh’s encounter record is its remarkable consistency. Official narratives often describe a familiar sequence: suspects allegedly fire at police, attempt to flee, and are injured – frequently in the leg – in retaliatory firing. The recurrence of this pattern across thousands of cases has invited scepticism from legal experts and human rights advocates.
The data also reveal significant regional concentration. The Meerut Zone alone recorded 4,813 encounters, leading to 97 deaths, 3,513 injuries, and 8,921 arrests. Other zones such as Varanasi, Agra, Bareilly, Lucknow, and Ghaziabad reported similarly high numbers.
While the government interprets these statistics as evidence of effective policing, they also raise questions about accountability. In a system governed by law, every use of lethal force must be exceptional, necessary, and subject to independent scrutiny. When encounters become routine, scrutiny often gives way to normalisation.
A Judicial Warning
The most serious concerns have come not from activists alone but from the judiciary itself.In January, the Allahabad High Court observed that encounters had ‘become a routine feature’ in Uttar Pradesh and appeared to be carried out to ‘please senior officers or to teach a lesson to the accused’. Hearing bail pleas from individuals who had been shot in the leg, the court noted that it was frequently confronted with cases where police resorted to firing even in matters involving relatively minor offences.
Such observations are significant because they strike at the heart of constitutional governance. The court’s concern is not merely about individual incidents but about an institutional culture in which force risks becoming the default response.
The judiciary’s warning should serve as a reminder that policing exists within legal limits. The state cannot become investigator, prosecutor, judge, and executioner simultaneously.
Due Process versus Instant Justice
Supporters of encounter policing often argue that extraordinary criminal threats require extraordinary measures. They point to notorious gangsters, repeat offenders, and organised crime syndicates that have terrorised communities.
However, this argument overlooks a crucial principle: the strength of a democracy lies precisely in its ability to uphold legal safeguards even when dealing with dangerous individuals.
Due process is not a privilege reserved for the innocent. It is a protection designed to prevent misuse of state power. Once society accepts the idea that police can decide guilt and punishment on the street, the line between legitimate law enforcement and abuse of power begins to blur.
History offers ample warnings. Encounter cultures often start with alleged gangsters but gradually expand to encompass petty offenders, political dissidents, marginalised communities, and those unable to defend themselves. The Allahabad High Court’s observation that even theft cases were witnessing such tactics underscores this danger.
The Broader Consequences
The encounter model also masks deeper structural failures. If thousands of suspects are being injured or killed, what does this say about the effectiveness of investigation, prosecution, witness protection, and judicial processes?
A sustainable law-and-order framework requires stronger institutions, not merely stronger firepower. Efficient courts, professional investigations, forensic capabilities, and police reforms deliver lasting results. Encounter policing, by contrast, offers immediate visibility but risks weakening institutional credibility over time.
There is also the issue of public trust. Communities are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement when they perceive police as impartial guardians of law. When policing becomes associated with fear rather than fairness, trust erodes, particularly among vulnerable groups.
A Defining Test for Democracy
Citizens have every right to demand protection from criminal violence. Yet the true test of governance lies not in how harshly the state can act but in how faithfully it adheres to constitutional principles while doing so.
The state’s own figures – 17,043 encounters in nine years – should provoke reflection rather than celebration.
A democracy cannot measure success solely by the number of bullets fired, suspects injured, or criminals killed. It must also ask whether justice was served through lawful means.
As Uttar Pradesh’s encounter record continues to grow, the debate is no longer merely about crime control. It is about the character of the Indian state itself. Will India strengthen institutions of justice, or will it increasingly rely on the allure of instant justice?
The answer will shape not only the future of policing in Uttar Pradesh but also the future of constitutional democracy in India.