Speaking at a criminal jurisprudence discourse in New Delhi, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan voiced deep concern over the escalating trend of extra-judicial killings and custodial violence in India. He criticized the use of police “shortcuts” to cover up investigative lacunae and highlighted that such practices directly undermine constitutional mandates and the rule of law.
Event: Discourse on “Ethics in Criminal Litigation, Trial by Media & Admissibility of Statements”
Organized By: Centre for Discourse on Criminal and Constitutional Jurisprudence
Key Speaker: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan (Judge, Supreme Court of India)
Location: New Delhi
Date of Address: September 18, 2026
Key Concerns Raised by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
1. Rise in Extra-Judicial Killings & Custodial Violence
- Reconsidering Past Assumptions: Justice Bhuyan noted that while he previously believed custodial violence was a phenomenon of the past, recent events have forced him to reconsider. He explicitly stated: “Extra-judicial killings are on the rise in India.”
- Questioning Crime-Scene Reconstructions: He questioned the legitimacy and urgency of taking accused persons out of custody at unusual hours. “Why do you have to take an accused in police custody to recreate a crime scene at 3 o’clock in the morning? Could you not have waited till sunrise? What is the grave urgency?”
2. “Shortcut Methods” to Cover Up Investigation Failures
- Stereotypical Explanations: The judge pointed out recurring police narratives following the death of an accused in custody—such as claims that the accused tried to snatch a rifle, that a scuffle led to accidental firing, that the accused jumped into a well due to depression, or was struck by a speeding vehicle.
- Masking Deficiencies: Justice Bhuyan emphasized that right-thinking citizens are forced to question whether these methods are adopted to cover up investigative lacunae when officers know a formal criminal trial may not yield a conviction.
- Incompatibility with the Constitution: He firmly declared: “Our constitutional system does not approve of these type of situations.”
3. Excesses by Police Officers & Aggression Against Protesters
- Loss of Professional Detachment: Recalling his earlier observations at book launch addresses, Justice Bhuyan expressed dismay over seeing young IPS officers personally assaulting demonstrators with anger.
- Safety in Custody: He remarked that such aggressive physical conduct against public demonstrators raises serious apprehensions regarding how an accused might be treated in police custody during the night. “One shudders to think what would happen if such a police officer gets custody at night… Many of us are quite wary of sending people to police custody, not for nothing.”
Legal Context & High Court Scrutiny
- Judicial Pushback on Encounter Narratives: Justice Bhuyan’s address coincides with increased scrutiny from constitutional courts regarding “encounter policing”.
- Allahabad High Court Orders: The Allahabad High Court has repeatedly questioned stereotypical narratives submitted by the Uttar Pradesh Police—specifically addressing patterns where accused persons are shot in the legs (“half-encounters” / “Operation Langda”) or where police officers escape uninjured while claiming to have faced indiscriminate firing.
- Enforcing PUCL Guidelines: The High Court mandated strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s landmark PUCL directives, ordering independent investigations, FIR registrations, and judicial oversight into police encounter incidents.
Key Takeaways & Constitutional Imperative
- Rule of Law vs. Vigilante Justice: Subverting formal judicial trials through extra-judicial means damages public trust and degrades the integrity of the criminal justice system.
- Accountability in Custody: Investigative procedures must remain strictly bounded by constitutional safeguards under Articles 14 and 21, ensuring that police custody does not become a space of physical peril.
- Investigative Competence: Rather than resorting to coercive “shortcuts,” state agencies must enhance the quality of forensic and legal evidence to secure convictions through established court processes.