Barrister Naveed Ahmed Qazi
The latest report by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has cast a harsh light on custodial deaths in Punjab, raising troubling questions about impunity, policing culture, and the unchecked use of force. What emerges is not a series of isolated excesses, but a pattern that appears deeply entrenched within law enforcement practices in the province.
According to the report, the situation has worsened following the establishment of the Crime Control Department (CCD) in February 2025. The department was created by the Punjab government with the stated goal of tackling organised crime and protecting citizens’ lives and property. Yet, instead of reassuring the public, its record over the past eight months has triggered alarm.
In that short span, 670 encounters led by the CCD reportedly resulted in the deaths of 924 suspects. In comparison, only two police officials lost their lives in those operations. The stark imbalance — averaging more than two encounters and over three deaths per day — inevitably invites scrutiny. When the use of lethal force becomes so routine, it raises the uncomfortable question of whether it is being treated as a last resort, as required under the law, or as a default response.
Even more disturbing is the manner in which these incidents have been documented. First Information Reports (FIRs) filed after the encounters show a striking similarity in narrative structure and wording. The pattern is familiar: suspects allegedly open fire on police; officers respond in self-defence; the accused are killed; accomplices manage to escape. The formula is repeated with mechanical consistency across case after case.
Adding to the unease is a recurring detail in several FIRs: mortally wounded suspects are said to have briefly regained consciousness to provide precise personal information — their name, parentage, address, even alleged criminal history — before dying of their injuries. The language describing these moments bears an uncanny resemblance across reports, suggesting not spontaneous documentation but adherence to a standard template.
Such uniformity undermines confidence in the authenticity of the accounts. It suggests routinisation — the possibility that encounters are being recorded according to a script, insulating them from independent scrutiny. When documentation becomes formulaic, accountability suffers.
The legal framework governing custodial deaths is clear. The Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act 2022 mandates that every custodial death be investigated by the Federal Investigation Agency under the supervision of the National Commission for Human Rights. Yet there appears to be little evidence that this process is being consistently followed. If investigations are not conducted as required by law, then due process is not merely weakened; it is rendered meaningless.
There is a longstanding tendency in public discourse to justify extrajudicial actions by pointing to weaknesses in the criminal justice system — delayed trials, low conviction rates, procedural loopholes. But this reasoning diverts responsibility away from law enforcement agencies themselves. Weak prosecutions cannot be remedied by bypassing the law. Effective policing demands meticulous investigation, evidence collection, forensic capacity and adherence to constitutional safeguards. Resorting to brute force may appear efficient in the short term, but it erodes the very foundation of justice.
Extrajudicial killings do not strengthen the rule of law; they corrode it. They diminish public trust, create fear rather than security, and foster a culture where accountability becomes optional. When citizens begin to believe that guilt or innocence is decided in the field rather than in court, confidence in institutions declines sharply.
The current crisis therefore demands responsibility at the highest levels. Leadership within the Punjab Police, the CCD, and relevant federal authorities cannot treat these concerns as routine criticism. If the patterns identified by the Human Rights Commission are accurate, they point toward systemic failure rather than individual misconduct.
Pakistan has a long and painful history of so-called “encounter killings.” Yet the recent surge in Punjab, combined with repetitive reporting patterns, suggests institutionalisation rather than aberration. This makes independent scrutiny all the more urgent. As the Human Rights Commission has recommended, a judicial inquiry appears essential to restore credibility.
Equally troubling are reports that families of the deceased have been pressured not to file FIRs. If true, such intimidation compounds injustice and blocks avenues for redress. A climate in which victims’ families fear speaking out reflects a serious breakdown of protections meant to safeguard citizens from abuse.
Recent constitutional changes that have reduced judicial oversight further heighten concerns. When institutional checks weaken, the risk of excess grows. Transparency and oversight are not obstacles to effective policing; they are safeguards against abuse. Without them, even well-intentioned initiatives risk sliding into authoritarian practices.
The provincial leadership faces a critical choice. It can either dismiss these concerns as exaggerated or confront them head-on through transparent investigation and reform. Protecting citizens does not mean bypassing legal safeguards. Security achieved at the cost of due process is fragile and ultimately unsustainable.
True reform requires structural change: clear operational guidelines on the use of force, independent review boards for encounter cases, full compliance with custodial death investigation laws, protection for whistleblowers and victims’ families, and investment in modern investigative capacity. Policing must move away from a culture that prizes force over evidence.
The credibility of the justice system depends on visible accountability. If the state claims to uphold the law, it must demonstrate that its own agents are subject to that law. Otherwise, assertions of protecting life and property ring hollow.
Punjab stands at a crossroads. Transparency, due process and adherence to the rule of law are not optional principles; they are the bedrock of democratic governance. Unless provincial authorities act decisively to restore oversight and accountability, the cycle of impunity will persist — and public trust will continue to erode.
This is not merely a law enforcement issue. It is a test of institutional integrity. The time for quiet concern has passed. What is needed now is open inquiry, honest reckoning, and a renewed commitment to justice that places the rule of law above expediency.
