Custodial violence was regarded as vital to uphold peace and deter crime, according to the Hindu texts made up of the Manu-Smriti. The idea of "eye for an eye" was very common during the Mughal dynasty. Only during Akbar's reign was the practice of torturing criminals discouraged.

Following the Mughals, India had a time of British colonies. The British also encouraged the severe treatment of those who were accused of crimes while they were being tried and utilise torture as a tool for questioning prisoners. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, everyone has the fundamental right to life, and it is explicitly stated that no one may be deprived of their life or their personal freedom until doing so in accordance with the legal process.1

This implies that before a person is punished, The right to a fair criminal trial, which includes being judged based on evidence and having the opportunity to defend oneself and appeal a verdict, is essential. However, in cases of staged encounters and extrajudicial executions, police officers are allowed to act as judge and executioner without following the legal process.

This violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, as it denies the accused their fundamental rights. Such actions must be prohibited, and the accused must be given a chance to defend themselves in a fair trial within the bounds of the law. Everyone has the right to be heard, and those who are accused must appear to the court for a just trial process.

Yet, killing a suspect a fair trial would mean mocking the legal system's due process requirements and infringing on the accused's fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The appropriate authorities must determine whether or not all of the encounter cases in India were false. According to the NHRC, police officers fabricate interactions in order to demonstrate political leaders a swift resolution by whatever means necessary. A FIR must be made and handed to the court right away if someone is killed as a result of the police using force after receiving a tip.

A police team from another police station or an impartial team of specialists, like CID, should conduct an investigation once a criminal case has been filed to guarantee a fair trial. Every encounter case must go through a magisterial enquiry, and the judicial magistrate must get a report on each case.

Introduction
Extra judicial killing is the most egregious degrading and permanent of all human rights crimes. This extra judicial killing involves killing of an accused by the government authorities without going with the due process of law and also without and deterrent from the court of law. By avoiding the entire criminal justice process the state typically does this to achieve what may be deemed instant justice. Humans demand that their fundamental rights and liberties be upheld.

The state or government is the only entity with the power to advance and safeguard citizens' rights. The act of extrajudicial killing is considered one of the most egregious forms of human rights violations. Extrajudicial actions are those that are not taken in a legal proceeding. Extrajudicial executions are prohibited.

It is a disdain for one of the most fundamental human rights, the right to life. Extrajudicial killings are generally defined as when a person is unlawfully killed by a government official or individual without the consent of a court or in accordance with a government order, despite the fact that there is no legal meaning for the term. This act is by its very nature illegal, and it is typically carried out by the state government or other state agencies like the police, armed forces, etc.

Deaths brought on by strafing, assassinations, random shooting, massacre, and mass murder are among the lethal penalties.2 "Audi alteram partem" refers to "both parties need to be heard," It is the cornerstone of the protection of the accused during trial.3 The accused may not have committed the crime for which they are being imprisoned, but if they are denied the right to an independent defence, they may suffer as a result of another person's wrongdoing. Everyone has the right to be heard, and those who are accused must appear before the court for a just trial.

Yet, killing a suspect before a fair trial would mean mocking the legal system's due process requirements and infringing on the Fundamental rights of the accused as provided by the Indian Constitution. The manner that these extrajudicial killings are portrayed and supported in media and popular culture is another very unsettling aspect. The accused officer of such major crimes are known as "encounter experts," and several of them have received medals in addition to monetary prizes.

Both the general population and the media consider these police officers as heroes and highlight their actions as noble deeds, so these behaviour are encouraged going forward. The "slow or no justice" tradition in India is also to blame for this type of reaction and the higher rate of public acceptability for extrajudicial killings.4

The Natural Justice Principle, or Audi Alteram Partem, is commonly violated in fake encounters when the police act as the court without even allowing the accused a chance to be heard. The Supreme Court found in the EP Royappa case that the state's subjective actions violate Article 14. According to media view, these encounter are typically target less powerful members of society rather than wanted criminals. It was considered that most encounters in UP took place between Muslims or individuals from lower socioeconomic strata.5

Dispositions Concerning India's Extra-Judicial Killing

Extrajudicial killings violate fundamental rights
Article 21 is main law that safeguards all Indian citizens, not only the guilty. It states unequivocally that no person shall be deprived of his or her life or personal freedom other than by means specified by law.6 Therefore, under this legislation, a person accused has the right to a fair trial, to be represented, and to be judged on the basis of the evidence. Extrajudicial killings are those committed by state agents or officials without following the proper legal procedures. These murders are against the law and violate people's basic rights.

The right to life is one of the most fundamental rights established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Extrajudicial executions are a clear violation of this right. The government must safeguard the lives of its citizens, but it cannot do so by taking another person's life without following the proper procedures.

Every person has the right to due process of law and a fair trial. Notwithstanding the fact that someone has committed an atrocious crime, it is not acceptable to take away their life. Additionally, it is against the Constitution's Articles 14 and 22. Since everyone is equal unless the law says otherwise, Article 14 creates equality before the law and equal protection of the law, which means that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a fair chance to present themselves.7

A person in detention has rights under Article 22, and extrajudicial executions constitute a fundamental right violation if the appropriate procedure is not followed after an arrest. Extrajudicial executions are frequently conducted in the interest of national security or as part of an anti-crime campaign. However, the violation of fundamental rights cannot be justified by the state's need to uphold law and order. In addition to violating the right to life, state actors who use extrajudicial executions also violate other fundamental rights like the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, and the right to dignity.

Provisions And Guidelines Used By Police Officials

The deliberate death of people by state agents or others acting on the state's behalf outside of the legal system is known as an extrajudicial killing. The right to life is violated by these murders, which are frequently committed without following the proper legal procedures. Extrajudicial executions can occur in a variety of ways, including,

Those killed by police or security personnel while being detained or being arrested vigilantes or death squads that assassinate people on the spot. Executing assassinations are government employees or agents. Extrajudicial executions are against the law and a number of state statutes as well as international human rights legislation. They are regarded as significant crimes that may result in harsh punishments, such as incarceration or possibly the death penalty. 7 INDIA CONST.art.1,�14.

Police officers use Section 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 96 of the IPC as defences after an accused person is killed before trial.

• Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives police officers the authority to use any and all tools at their disposal to make an arrest or maintain control. Use of excessive force has the potential to be fatal. Police forces are permitted to hurt or kill the criminal for the sole reason of self-defense or when doing so is urgently necessary to uphold peace and order.
   
• Every human being has a fundamental and inherent right to private defence, as stated in Indian Criminal Code (IPC) Article 96. Which intern grants police officers the authority to kill or employ severe force in self-defense.
   
• The Indian Defense Force has been granted significant powers to use deadly force in various situations under the Armed Forces Act. However, the Act does not provide any specific restrictions on the extent to which these powers can be used, resulting in numerous instances of excessive use of force being reported in areas where AFSPA is enforced.

The police utilise provisions to justify or cover up extrajudicial executions, but these provisions are not legal. Instead, they are illegal practises.

These may consist of:

• Police may fabricate evidence to support their conduct or to establish a false account of the murder. In order to make it appear as though the victim was armed or dangerous, this may involve placing drugs or weapons on the victim or staging the crime scene.
   
• In order to bolster their version of events, police may coerce or intimidate witnesses into making bogus testimonies. These claims could be made to defend the murder or fabricate a fake account of the victim.
   
• Report fabrication: The circumstances of the killing, the use of force, and the victim's behaviour may all be fabricated in police reports. This may be done to conceal the murder's genuine motive or to defend the police.
   
• Family members may be threatened or intimidated by police in order to prevent them from pursuing retribution or coming forward with information about the murder. This could involve threatening to injure or jail family members, or providing payments or other rewards in exchange for their silence.These clauses are against the law and unconstitutional. They are frequently employed to hide crimes and shield those who have committed them.
  
  Police personnel who commit extrajudicial executions or use these laws as a justification for their crimes are breaking their oath of office and should be held accountable for their crimes. Extrajudicial executions are a serious crime that violate the right to life, to sum up. It is wrong and should be denounced when police utilise legal means to carry out or cover up these deaths. Justice must be delivered for the victims and their families, and those guilty for extrajudicial killings must be held accountable for their deeds.

Guidelines Presented By Nhrc In The Matter Of Extra Judicial Killing

Guidelines have been released by India's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to stop extrajudicial killings. These regulations are meant to make sure that law enforcement authorities follow the law and protect everyone's human rights. The rules demand that law enforcement organizations follow stringent procedural protections, such as using force only when it is necessary and proportionate to the threat being faced and giving medical care to anyone hurt while using force. Law enforcement organisations are also expected to discipline any officers who are found to have used excessive force and to report all instances of use of force to the NHRC.

The use of force must also be reviewed by an impartial authority, such as a magistrate or a police complaints authority, according to the NHRC standards. This review must be completed as soon as possible, impartially, and successfully, and it must look into the circumstances surrounding the use of force, the type of force used, and any injuries that may have resulted from it.

In accordance with the NHRC rules, victims' relatives must also get proper restitution and rehabilitation, as well as updates on any investigation or inquiry into the loss of a loved one. The rules also call for the creation of an impartial commission to look into instances of extrajudicial murders and keep an eye on how they are being carried out. This commission should be made up of impartial professionals, and it should have the authority to carry out inquiries, offer suggestions, and keep an eye on how well the rules are being followed.

The NHRC rules offer a thorough framework for preventing extrajudicial executions, ensuring that law enforcement agencies follow the law, and protecting all people' human rights.

• Law enforcement organisations must also receive the proper training on the use of force, human rights, and international norms, and they must offer the proper medical and psychological assistance to officers who use force, according to the rules.
   
• The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has advised all States and Union Territories to ensure that the police follow a set of guidelines whenever there is a death during a police encounter.
   
• The details provided will be considered adequate to raise doubts about the occurrence of a crime, which requires prompt measures to be taken to probe into the events and conditions that resulted in the death, in order to ascertain the nature of the offense and the identity of the perpetrator.
   
• Although the encounter party's members are police officers from the same police station, other independent investigation authorities, such State CID, should also look into the crimes.
   
• The issue of providing restitution to the dependents may be taken into consideration in cases that result in conviction and in which police personnel are sentenced in accordance with the findings of the investigation.

My opinion is that a delay in justice is the main cause of extrajudicial killing. In India, it typically takes more than five to ten years to resolve a matter. Even for heinous crimes, like the Nirbhaya Rape Case, it took about 7 years before the girl received full justice. Despite the fact that it took 7 years to wrap up the case and give the girl justice, this case shocked the majority of the nation.

The people who advocate extrajudicial killings may be believing that this delay in justice is a rejection of justice. Since many people believe the court will not deliver justice in a timely manner, it grows out of trust in the courts. The judiciary must win the public's trust in order to reduce the frequency of extrajudicial killings by creating fast-track tribunals for egregious and serious offences, boosting the appointment of judges to fill open positions, lengthening the daily workday etc.8

8 Meera Emmanuel, Even State has no authority to violate Article 21: What the Supreme Court said about Encounter Killings back in 2014, Bar and Bench, (April.4. 2023, 12:22pm),

NHRC 2010 Guidelines Recommendation

Further police encounter rules were released by the NHRC in 2010. According to the NHRC, if a police officer is discovered to have staged an encounter, a FIR must be filed against that officer. A magistrate's enquiry must be conducted as soon as possible, ideally within three months.

Within 48 hours after a person's death, the responsible Senior Superintendent of Police is required to notify the NHRC of any deaths brought about by police activity on state property. In every situation, the NHRC/SHRC should receive a second report within three months. In order to stop extrajudicial executions, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India published recommendations in 2010.

The following are the guidelines' main points:

1. Only when absolutely necessary and in proportion to the threat present should police use force.
2. Only when all other options have been exhausted should lethal force be utilised.
3. Before employing force, police should identify themselves and give a loud warning that they intend to do so.
4. Force should never be used by police against those who are surrendering or under their control.
5. Any use of force should be immediately reported to higher authorities, and the incident should be thoroughly and promptly investigated.
6. Officers who kill people without justification or use excessive force should be held accountable and subject to disciplinary and criminal punishment.
7. Any extrajudicial executions or instances of excessive use of force should be reported to the NHRC, and they should be looked into right away. Extrajudicial executions, which constitute a grave breach of both human rights and the rule of law, are prohibited by these standards. The NHRC has emphasised the significance of making law enforcement officers responsible for their deeds, ensuring that they follow the law and uphold everyone's human rights.

Incidence Of Encounter In India

India has seen a lot of encounter cases; whether they are all fake encounters or not must be decided by the relevant authorities. In the opinion of the NHRC, false encounters are produced by police officers in order to show the political leaders a speedy result by whatever means necessary. Another significant factor is that the educated middle class shares the view that police should enforce the law directly against feared criminals because they believe that the criminal justice system is too slow and that the judiciary would take too long to reach a decision.

As a result, they do not oppose police encounters. The NHRC also underlined the fact that trials drag on for years at a time and the results are seldom definite, especially when it comes to offenders who have access to resources like money and force. This is why the cops are under pressure to use shortcuts and illegal means. Politicians frequently collude with public authorities and provide them with support.

1. In February 2020, in Manipur, an Inspector and three police officers surrendered themselves before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Imphal West, in relation to the purportedly fabricated encounter of a person named Irengbam Ratankumar on September 1, 2010.
    
2. In December 2019, four men from Telangana who were charged with gang-raping and burning a veterinarian doctor to death were allegedly shot dead by the police in self-defence, as the men purportedly attempted to escape and pelted stones at them.
    
3. Bhopal Prison Encounter: In Bhopal, India, in October 2016, eight persons are said to have escaped from the central jail. They were all supposedly members of the student-run Islamic Movement of India, and the Bhopal police shot and killed them all. They were all reportedly ordered to surrender, but instead of doing so, they all began to fire in response, forcing the police to open fire, which resulted in their immediate death.
    
4. Batla House, Delhi. Two alleged mujahideen terrorists were living there when a famous Batla House, Jamia Nagar encounter occurred in 2008. Both of them were shot dead on the scene.
    
5. The Ram Narayan Gupta case from 2006 in Mumbai, he popularly known as "Lakhan Bhaiya," was apprehended and allegedly killed by Bombay Police in a shootout because the information indicated that he was a possible associate of the gangster Chhota Rajan.
    
6. As per the Gujarat police, Sohrabuddin Shiekh was affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba. However, the CBI inquiry suggests that he was a criminal who was on the run and was intercepted by the Gujarat ATS team while traveling with his wife from Hyderabad to Sangli in Maharashtra. Three days later, the ATS Chief D.G. Vanzara met him and declared him a terrorist who had intentions of attacking Narendra Modi.
    
7. Gujarat's Tulsiram Prajapati since 2006 he was allegedly killed in an encounter because Sohrabuddin Shiekh knew he was connected to him.
    
8. Ishrat Jahan, a student in her second year at Mumbai's Guru Nanak Khalsa College, in Ahmedabad in 2004 he was allegedly a LeT agent, according to one of the terrorists. The Gujarat Police allegedly came across him and three other people.
    
9. The Tamil Nadu Veerappan case. He was the most sought-after criminal in 2004, and the Tamilnadu STF claimed to have run into him. He was notorious for kidnapping, elephant poaching, and sandalwood smuggling.
    
10. Gujarat's Sadiq Jamal He was stopped by Gujarat police in 2003 after they claimed to have information that he planned to attack Modi and other prominent Bharti Janta Party leaders. In addition to these examples, there are numerous other instances where a person was supposedly encountered by police officers who claimed that he was attempting to flee or retaliate against them. Police officers have frequently been accused of staging incidents.

The Supreme Court's Position on the Legality of Extrajudicial Executions
After these terrible incidents, the Supreme Court placed strict regulations on police officers who participate in such operations. They have developed a fresh method for looking at fatalities brought on by close contact. Nonetheless, despite such strict regulations, these police groups occasionally carry out these assassinations because of institutional and political pressures.

A three-judge panel made a distinction between official activities and actions taken for personal benefit in the Station House Officer v. BA Srinivasan case. Extrajudicial executions, commonly referred to as "encounter killings," have drawn heavy criticism from the Indian Supreme Court in recent years. Extrajudicial executions are essentially when law enforcement or security agencies kill somebody without having followed the proper legal procedures.

The Supreme Court of India decided in a landmark decision in 2014 that extrajudicial executions were unconstitutional and that any such killings by the police or other security personnel would be prosecuted as crimes. The Indian Constitution's provision of the fundamental rights to life and liberty was further upheld by the court as being breached by such actions.

The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) petitioned the court, bringing to light the widespread usage of encounter murders by the police in the state of Manipur, and the court's judgement was in reaction. The PUCL claimed that these murders were committed with impunity and that the police were using them to fight terrorism and insurgency in the area.

In order to guarantee that justice was done and that those responsible for the encounter killings were held accountable, the Court further ordered that all encounter killing cases be investigated by a separate organisation, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In circumstances where the killings were deemed to be unjustifiable, the Court further ordered that compensation be given to the victims' relatives.

Since the Supreme Court's decision in 2014, the CBI has looked into a number of high-profile encounter death cases, and numerous police officials and security staff have been held accountable for their conduct. For instance, the CBI's Special Investigation Team (SIT) charged six police personnel in the state of Uttar Pradesh in 2019.The Supreme Court of India stated in its ruling that the state has exclusive use of force and that any use of force by law enforcement or security forces must be appropriate and justified. Extrajudicial executions were found by the court to be unlawful under any circumstances, and they also damaged the rule of law.

However, encounter killings continue to happen in India in spite of the Court's decision and the CBI's attempts. In India, there were at least 1,782 fatalities in custody between 2010 and 2019, according to a research by the National Campaign Against Torture, many of which were likely instances of extrajudicial executions.

In conclusion, extrajudicial executions have been strongly condemned by the Supreme Court of India, which sees them as a breach of fundamental rights and a challenge to the rule of law. The Court has ordered that all such cases be looked at by an impartial organisation and that the families of the victims be given compensation. However, encounter killings continue to happen in India despite these attempts, underscoring the need for greater accountability.

Stance of Supreme Court on police Encounter.
The Supreme Court established guidelines as the standard procedure that should be followed and regulated through independent and effective investigation in case of death caused by the encounter in a writ petition PUCL v. Maharashtra, which raised the genuineness of the 99 people the Mumbai Police encountered. The Supreme Court advised that all information obtained by police officers regarding the occurrence of any serious crime should be documented, whether or not the location and personal information of the suspect must be made public.

If a person is killed as a result of the use of weapons by the police in response to a tip, a FIR must be filed and promptly delivered to the court. Once a criminal case has been filed, a police team from another police station or an independent team of professionals like CID should conduct an investigation to ensure a fair trial. All encounter cases must undergo a magisterial enquiry, and a report of each case must be sent to the judicial magistrate.The Indian Supreme Court has adopted a circumspect stance regarding police encounters, commonly referred to as "encounter killings" or "fake encounters."

The Court determined that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is violated when police kill people without justification. The Supreme Court has emphasised in a number of significant rulings that violence should only be used in self-defense or when there is no other reasonable option available for the authorities. The Court has also established stringent rules to make sure that police interactions are not abused to get rid of suspects without a fair trial.

The Supreme Court ordered all states to submit reports on police encounter cases to a three-member committee, which would thereafter submit its findings to the Court, in the 2014 case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra. The National Human Rights Commission was also told by the court to establish a separate division to look into claims of staged encounters. Overall, the Supreme Court has made it quite plain that police contacts must be conducted in exact accordance with the law and that any departure will result in stern repercussions. Even in situations where the police may feel pressured to take certain actions, the Court has acknowledged the significance of respecting the rule of law and safeguarding the fundamental rights of all individuals.

Suggestions to the government in reference to the Extrajudicial killing Although police action is very necessary to maintain law and order in the community, it should also be mandated to be carried out in accordance with the guidelines established for the purpose. Since it is their responsibility to deliver the subject of their custody to the legal system, police personnel should not be permitted to administer all forms of punishment.

They also shouldn't be permitted to carry out extrajudicial executions. Extrajudicial executions, also referred to as summary executions or extrajudicial killings, are murders committed without a fair trial or following a legal procedure. These kinds of killings, which frequently include members of the government or law enforcement, are against both human rights and the rule of law. Extrajudicial killings, which unfortunately still happen in many regions of the world, pose a severe threat to people's safety and security as well as the security of their communities.

A number of recommendations can be made to stop and lessen the frequency of extrajudicial executions.

Some of the most important actions that could be made include the following:

1. Strengthening the rule of law: Ensuring that everyone, including government employees and law enforcement personnel, is held accountable for their acts while strengthening the rule of law is one of the most effective strategies to avoid extrajudicial murders. Strong legal frameworks, such as those that uphold human rights and forbid extrajudicial executions, can help achieve this. The court system must also be independent, unbiased, and transparent in order to be able to look into and prosecute cases of extrajudicial murders.
    
2. Reforming law enforcement organisations is a crucial next step in ensuring that officers are properly equipped and prepared to perform their responsibilities in a responsible and professional manner. This can involve offering instruction on human rights and the proper use of force, as well as making sure that law enforcement organisations have enough personnel and funding. Establishing efficient supervision procedures is crucial for keeping an eye on law enforcement activity and holding them responsible for any violations.
    
3. The lack of access to justice and redress for victims and their families contributes to many extrajudicial killings. As a result, it's critical to guarantee that everyone has access to an equitable and efficient justice system that includes support services and legal aid. This can involve setting up specialised courts or tribunals to look into and try cases of extrajudicial executions, as well as paying victims' families compensation and offering other forms of support.
    
4. Building up civil society: Civil society groups are essential for keeping track of and recording extrajudicial executions as well as fighting for the rights of those killed and their families. As a result, it is crucial to aid and strengthen civil society organisations, such as human rights organisations, clinics that provide legal aid, and other advocacy groups. This can involve shielding them from intimidation and retaliation while also offering financial, technical aid, and legal support to these organisations.
    
5. fostering international cooperation: The issue of extrajudicial executions is a global one, and it is crucial to foster cooperation and coordination across nations to solve it. This can involve exchanging knowledge and best practises, giving advice and training on technical matters, and working together on inquiries and prosecutions. Additionally, it is crucial to advance global human rights.

In conclusion, extrajudicial executions constitute a major breach of human rights and the rule of law and a serious danger to people's safety and security as well as those of their communities. It is crucial to expand access to justice, strengthen civil society, strengthen the rule of law, and promote international collaboration in order to stop and lessen the frequency of these killings. All parties involved in these measures including governments, civil society organisations, and the international community must maintain a strong political will and commitment.

Conclusion
Extra Judicial Killing, often known as a killing carried out by a person not operating in an official capacity and typically outside the purview of the law, is a killing motivated by actual or imagined grievances. People or groups who feel they have been mistreated and are seeking vengeance, justice, or some other form of retaliation frequently conduct the crime.

The act can occur in a number of situations, such as domestic disagreements, land disputes, and political confrontations, and it can take many different forms, such as murder, assault, and torture. Extra Judicial Killing seriously violates people's rights and the rule of law, undermining democracy and justice at their core.

It is a symptom that the social contract between the state and society has broken down. A desire for swift justice, which is viewed as more effective and efficient than the formal legal system, is frequently the driving force behind extrajudicial killing. This desire stems from a lack of confidence in the legal system, which is frequently perceived as being corrupt, cumbersome, and ineffective. Additionally, it is driven by a sense of helplessness and annoyance, especially among marginalised and disadvantaged groups who believe the state has abandoned them.

Extrajudicial murder has a terrible effect on people, families, and communities. It promotes cycles of vengeance and retaliation and cultivates a culture of fear and violence. Additionally, it damages the social cohesion of neighbourhoods by fostering animosity and mistrust amongst various groups. The core causes of Extra Judicial Killing, such as poverty, inequality, and discrimination, must also be addressed.

This calls for an all-encompassing strategy that addressesthe fundamental and systemic causes of these problems, such as economic policies, social programmes, and political reforms. Promoting a culture of respect for human rights and the rule of law is crucial at the same time. This calls for campaigns to spread knowledge and increase awareness as well as actions to hold those responsible for Extra Judicial Killing accountable. It also needs the backing of human rights organisations and civil society organisations, who can be instrumental in promoting justice and accountability.

Extra Judicial Killing, to sum up, is a grave breach of human rights and the rule of law that has a terrible effect on people, families, and communities. The rule of law must be strengthened, the causes of violence and injustice must be addressed, and a culture of respect for human rights and the law must be promoted in order to overcome this problem. This necessitates a multifaceted strategy involving the government, nongovernmental organisations, and the global community. We can only make a society where Extra Judicial Killing is no longer accepted and where justice and human rights are protected for all if we fight together.

End-Notes:

• INDIA CONST.art. 1,�21.
• Shrijita, A Short Study On Extrajudicial killing, Legal Service India E- Journal (April.4. 2023, 12:22pm).
• Ayush Pandey, Extra-Judicial Killing:Injustice done in the Name of Instant Justice, Jus Corpus law Journal,[507] (2021).
• Jolly Singh, Extra-Judicial Killing: A Threat To Democracy, SSRN.
• Soham Banerjee, Critical Analysis of Extra Judicial Killing In India, Know Law (April.4. 2023, 12:40pm).
• Supra note 1.

Written By: Pranshutosh Kumar, B.A LL.B, 2nd year - University of Petroleum and Energy Studies
Ph no: 7081310069