Legality versus Legitimacy of Encounters in Uttar Pradesh

It leads us to the larger debate of legality versus legitimacy. It is here that the issue finds its place in legal philosophy and international law.

The Rise of Encounters in Uttar Pradesh

For being crowned as India's most populous state, the state of Uttar Pradesh has been facing criticism for the spurt in the number of police encounters since 2017. More than 6,000 encounters have taken place as per official data, in which more than 100 alleged criminals have lost their lives. This is something on which the Adityanath government in UP time and again seeks to project its strict approach towards crime.

However, these encounters have raised a number of questions. Many of these incidents are not a case of self-defense but a case of extrajudicial killing, some critics say. And that has brought into sharp focus questions about the legality and legitimacy of those encounters, whether they were constitutionally just or unlawful acts carried out under the cloak of legality.

Legality vs. Legitimacy: A Critical Analysis

This turns the question of legality versus legitimacy most aptly relevant in the context of police encounters. legality versus legitimacy speaks to the difference between what can be legally done and what may be personally or morally justifiable. In other words, an act can be legal under the prevailing laws but not necessarily legitimate in that it trespasses on moral or human rights principles.

1. Legal Framework Governing Encounters

Especially the use of force by the police is justified on the grounds of self-defense or preventing grave crimes. Right to private defense has been given under Section 96 of the IPC and Section 100 extends the right to use force likely to cause death to an assailant, under specific conditions. The police are empowered to use such forces as is necessary to discharge duties.

However, the legality of encounters would depend on whether such force used by the police was necessary and proportionate. Strict guidelines that NHRC and the Supreme Court of India could ensure that acts of this nature are subjected to proper investigation. In cases of encounters, incidents have to be reported and there must be a judicial inquiry in cases where death has occurred.

2. Dubious Validity

Though there is a legal framework, the validity of these encounters is actually hotly debated. The fine line between legitimate vs. legit comes into prominence when one considers the practice of actions that are legally justified as fitting or not within larger ethical benchmarks. Extrajudicial killing, even staged with a facade of law enforcement, runs completely afoul of fundamental human rights, including but not restricted to the right to life and due process.

The genuineness of such encounters is under question if one takes into consideration the frequency and pattern of such incidents. Allegations of false implications, and no opportunity given to the victims to surrender, these encounters caused by the state questions its legitimacy to use its force. While the rule of law has to be the guideline for state actions in a democracy, any actions taken that bypass the process of judicial scrutiny are ultimately corrosive of legality itself, however well-intentioned.

Legality versus Legitimacy before International Law

The legality versus legitimacy debate is not a monopoly of Uttar Pradesh or India. As a matter of fact, it is a differentiation being made in international law. Many countries have faced that challenge of balancing the need for security with protection of human rights. The use of force by state authorities is guidelines set in crystal clear terms by the United Nations and other international bodies, underlining emphatically that just because something is legal, it is not necessarily legitimate.

The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provide guidelines on when force can be used. According to these principles, the use of force has to be necessary and proportionate and resorted to only when other measures have failed. Acts, even when lawfully justified, too must pass the test of legitimacy at the international level.

In the case of Uttar Pradesh, for example, human rights groups, national and international, have continued to call out that such encounters represent extra-judicial killing. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch alike have called out for greater openness and accountability, regardless of whether the actions on behalf of the state fall within international norms in terms of use of force.

Balancing Crime Control with Human Rights

This challenge has to be overcome in the balancing of control of crime with the rule of law, and in every government-mostly in states like Uttar Pradesh where crimes are grave. There is a greater need for the legitimacy of enforcement action, the persistent public confidence in the legal system, and thus its effectiveness. Inevitably, the state undermines its legitimacy even when it adopts tactics that technically do not violate its legal processes, as those methods seem to subvert them.

This, with regard to encounters, would imply that even though legally empowered, the police uses of force, the legitimacy of such acts would always be questioned. Extrajudicial killing or the use of disproportionate force apart from violation of human rights will also tarnish the image of the state at both national and international levels.

Way Ahead: Accountability and Justice

Legality must be combined with legitimacy in relation to the fears of encounters in Uttar Pradesh by adopting a series of measures: firstly, all encounters must be subjected to judicial scrutiny of the highest order; and independent inquiries are necessary to establish whether the use of force was unavoidable and proportionate.

There has to be transparency: information related to the encounters has to be in the public domain, and even the rights of the accused in serious crimes are to be protected. All the accused were to be given a fair opportunity to surrender; their guilt to be established in the courts of law rather than extrajudicial killings.

This would in turn ensure salience of the role of human rights organizations and oversight mechanisms, such as the NHRC, for holding law enforcement agencies accountable. A state, through legality thus conjugated with legitimacy, is able to fight crime effectively while keeping the rule of law and command of public confidence in the rule of law.