By: Muhammad Anwar
Crime is not a new phenomenon. What defines a functioning state is not the absence of criminal activity, but the manner in which the state responds to it. Societies governed by law rely on due process, institutional accountability, and judicial oversight. When these principles are weakened, even well-intentioned crime-control efforts risk becoming sources of injustice.
In Punjab, the recently highlighted CCD initiative has been presented as a major step towards tackling organised crime. While the objective may appear legitimate, a disturbing pattern has emerged. Almost daily reports claim that suspects arrested during raids were later “killed by the firing of their own accomplices”. The frequency of this explanation has raised serious questions about operational conduct and institutional responsibility.
If a suspect was in police custody, ensuring his safety was the state’s responsibility. If he was genuinely killed by others, this reflects a serious security failure. If reality differs, it constitutes an extrajudicial action. In either case, constitutional principles are compromised. No law enforcement agency has the authority to replace courts or determine guilt and punishment on the street.
Another troubling phrase has entered public discourse: “shot in the waist”. In cases involving serious crimes such as rape, this language is often used to imply instant retribution. There is no disagreement that rape is a heinous crime deserving of severe punishment. However, punishment must follow judicial determination. When law enforcement substitutes legal process with force, it erodes public trust and weakens the justice system’s legitimacy.
When individuals face multiple criminal cases, the appropriate response is not to eliminate them without trial, but to pursue institutional reform. Strengthening investigations, ensuring credible evidence collection, protecting witnesses, and improving prosecution capacity are the real solutions. Convictions secured through the courts send a stronger, more sustainable deterrent message than shortcuts that bypass accountability.
The silence of legal forums and professional bodies on the growing acceptance of such practices is also concerning. When extrajudicial narratives go unchallenged, they slowly become normalised. This normalisation carries long-term consequences for civil liberties and democratic governance.
Crime control is necessary. But bypassing constitutional safeguards reflects institutional weakness rather than strength. Sustainable public safety depends on effective policing combined with judicial reform, transparency, and oversight. Without these pillars, any apparent short-term gains risk producing more serious structural damage.
If unchecked power is legitimised today in the name of crime control, tomorrow it may be used against dissenting voices, political opponents, or ordinary citizens. The rule of law remains the only framework that protects both the authority of the state and the rights of the people.
