New Delhi, Oct. 28 -- Two police encounters in West Bengal, within barely 24 hours, have reignited one of the most emotionally charged debates in our society: should the police be applauded for decisive action against those accused of heinous crimes, or should every encounter invite suspicion? The incidents in Gaighata, involving a man accused of the rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl, and in Murshidabad's Samserganj, involving a murder accused, have brought the question back into public consciousness. According to the police, both men opened fire after allegedly snatching officers' firearms. The claims must be investigated, but the public sentiment behind the debate deserves serious attention.
When a daughter is raped and murdered, society does not merely demand punishment; it demands reassurance. Parents want to know whether their children are safe, whether criminals fear the consequences of their actions, and whether the law can protect the innocent before another tragedy strikes. The anger is understandable. The question is whether the State can transform that anger into a credible deterrent.
A society in which criminals fear the law is a safer society. A society in which citizens fear the law itself is not.
The attraction of instant justice
Encounters occupy a peculiar place in India's public imagination. They are condemned by some as extrajudicial punishment and celebrated by others as the moment when a seemingly helpless system finally asserts itself. This contradiction reflects a deeper crisis: public impatience with delayed trials, unreliable investigations and the possibility that influence or intimidation may help an accused person escape justice.
If an armed suspect poses an immediate threat to life, the police must be able to respond decisively. Protecting citizens and fellow officers is not optional. When lethal force is genuinely necessary to stop such a threat, the resulting death cannot automatically be equated with an unlawful execution.
But an encounter cannot become a substitute for punishment merely because the alleged crime is horrific. The distinction between self-defence and extrajudicial killing is fundamental. The police must establish the circumstances; independent investigation must determine whether their actions were justified.
When cinema becomes society's conscience
Indian cinema has long understood the dramatic power of the encounter. In Ab Tak Chhappan, the encounter specialist inhabits a morally complicated world where duty, violence and personal conscience collide. Article 15 confronts the failures and prejudices that can corrupt the pursuit of justice, while Jai Bhim exposes the devastating consequences of abuse of authority.
These films resonate because audiences recognise both sides of the dilemma. The public wants a fearless police force, but it also wants protection from arbitrary power. The cinematic hero who eliminates a villain in a climactic scene offers emotional satisfaction; real life, however, has no background score to establish guilt and no director to guarantee a morally perfect ending.
Literature has explored this dilemma for centuries. Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment examines the temptation to place oneself above ordinary moral rules. Victor Hugo's Les Miserables explores the conflict between authority, compassion and justice. Both remind us that the power to punish raises a profound question: who decides when the law may be bypassed?
The encounter is thrilling as a cinematic climax precisely because it offers finality. In real life, finality without scrutiny can be dangerous.
The world has seen the consequences
International experience offers important lessons. Police shootings in the United States have repeatedly provoked public protests and demands for accountability. Brazil's violent confrontations between security forces and suspected criminals have raised difficult questions about public safety and the human cost of aggressive policing. The Philippines' anti-drug campaign under former president Rodrigo Duterte attracted international condemnation and scrutiny over alleged extrajudicial killings.
These cases differ in scale, context and legal circumstances. They should not be casually equated with the recent incidents in Bengal. Yet they demonstrate why a State must distinguish lawful force from a culture in which death becomes an acceptable shortcut to justice.
The answer cannot be to make the police hesitant in the face of genuine danger. Nor can it be to give any officer unchecked authority over life and death. Professional policing requires both courage and accountability.
The viral verdict
Social media now delivers instant verdicts. A video circulates, outrage gathers momentum, and within hours an accused person may be celebrated as someone who deserved to die-or the police may be condemned before the facts are established.
Neither response is a substitute for evidence.
In the Bengal cases, the police accounts of firearms being snatched and shots being fired must be tested through forensic examination, witness statements, medical evidence and independent inquiry. The Supreme Court's judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra established safeguards for investigating deaths in police encounters. Such scrutiny is not an obstacle to justice; it is what makes justice credible.
There is another uncomfortable truth. Even a suspect accused of a monstrous crime retains legal protections. That principle does not diminish the victim's suffering. It protects the integrity of the system that must deliver justice for every victim.
Deterrence, not spectacle
If the objective is to reduce rape and murder, encounters alone cannot be the measure of success. The real deterrent is the certainty of detection, arrest, prosecution and punishment. A criminal must know that evidence will be collected swiftly, witnesses protected, trials expedited and conviction pursued without fear or favour.
An encounter may send a dramatic message, but effective policing must send a consistent one. The State must be capable of acting firmly before a crime, investigating thoroughly after it and ensuring that punishment follows through lawful processes.
The two recent incidents in Bengal have also placed a responsibility on the authorities: establish the facts transparently. If the police acted lawfully to protect life, the evidence should demonstrate that. If there were lapses or wrongdoing, those too must be addressed. Accountability should strengthen the force, not demoralise it.
The encounter worth winning
One can support decisive police action against violent criminals without endorsing every encounter. One can empathise with families devastated by rape and murder without demanding that the State abandon its legal obligations.
My position is clear: criminals must have reason to fear the consequences of their actions. Women and children must be safer. Victims must not be defeated by delay, intimidation or influence. And police officers confronting genuine threats must have the authority and institutional support to protect life.
But the ultimate test is not how many accused persons die in encounters. It is whether fewer crimes are committed, more offenders are convicted, and citizens regain confidence in the institutions meant to protect them.
Let the fear of the law enter the criminal's mind before the crime is committed-not the fear that the law itself may become arbitrary.
That is the encounter worth winning: not a gunfight that ends a case, but a justice system that prevents the next tragedy.
Views expressed are personal
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.