In recent days, a major alleged crime figure named Faisal was killed in a police encounter in Sargodha. Since then, many people have expressed sympathy for him, claiming that he was on his way to surrender when the police opened fire. Some believe a grave injustice has occurred.
As someone who firmly believes in the rule of law, I strongly oppose police encounters as a method of delivering justice. There are serious legal and moral concerns attached to extrajudicial killings. However, I also understand why some members of society feel that certain criminals leave the state with no other option.
We are talking about individuals accused of multiple murders, killing seven people over a minor dispute, six others over a personal grudge, and then openly living without fear. The argument many people make is simple: if such individuals are arrested and sent to jail, their associates may continue criminal operations, collect extortion money, and intimidate witnesses. In this mindset, an encounter appears to be the quickest solution.
But justice cannot be driven by anger or convenience. We must examine the broader consequences.
In the last eight months, reports suggest that approximately 1,100 people have been killed in police encounters. While some of them were hardened criminals with long criminal histories, many others were individuals accused of minor offenses, people who had left the world of crime, or those who were attempting to surrender. In some cases, there was even hope that they would reintegrate into society. Yet they were killed.
This raises a critical question: what are the long-term repercussions of encounter-based policing?
Previously, if an investigating officer detained someone who turned out to be innocent, there was at least a possibility of release, often through corrupt means involving small bribes. Today, in an environment where encounter culture has taken root, the risks have multiplied. If someone is picked up, the cost of “release” is no longer minimal; it may rise to enormous amounts. The system becomes more dangerous, more exploitative, and less accountable.
We also see troubling patterns in high-profile cases. For example, three robbers commit a crime in a restaurant, and the next day three alleged robbers are killed in an encounter. But how certain can we be that they were the same individuals? In some situations, the real perpetrators may escape while others are presented as the culprits to demonstrate quick results. Such practices undermine public trust and erode confidence in law enforcement.
Another serious concern involves false or exaggerated charges. Some individuals are booked under inflated allegations. Even if a crime has been committed, punishment must match the severity of the offense. The principle of proportionality is fundamental to justice. The state does not have the authority to impose a death sentence without trial, evidence, and judicial process.
This is where the judiciary must play a decisive role. Courts must ensure that executive power remains within constitutional limits. Judicial oversight and, where necessary, judicial activism are essential to safeguard citizens’ rights and maintain the rule of law.
No matter how serious the accusation, justice cannot be delivered through shortcuts. When extrajudicial killings become normalized, the legal system weakens, and once weakened, it fails not only the accused but also the innocent.
A society governed by law must resist the temptation of instant justice and instead strengthen institutions that guarantee fairness, accountability, and due process.