(Muhammad Anwar)
Crime is not something new. What makes a country work well is not that it has zero crime, but how the government responds to crime. Societies that follow the law depend on fair trials, making officials answer for their actions, and having judges watch over the process. When these rules are weakened, even if the goal is to stop crime, we risk creating a system that is actually unfair and unjust.
In Punjab, the government recently highlighted the Crime Control Department (CCD) as a big move against organized crime. While the goal seems good on the surface, a worrying pattern has emerged. International news, including Al Jazeera reports in February 2026, shows a massive increase in “police encounters.” According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), at least 930 suspects were killed in 670 recorded encounters between April and December 2025.
We often hear the same story: that suspects were “killed by the firing of their own partners.” This has prompted many people to ask serious questions about how the police operate. One very strange fact stands out: while nearly a thousand suspects were killed in just eight months, only two police officers lost their lives. This huge difference suggests that these killings might be planned actions rather than the police simply defending themselves in the heat of the moment.
This trend reminds us of a dark period in Sindh years ago, when a police officer became famous for the terms “half fry” and “full fry.” In that unofficial system, “half fry” meant shooting a suspect to disable their legs for life, while “full fry” meant killing them on the spot. During a seminar in Hyderabad, a high-ranking police official (DIG) once argued in his speech that the police must stop major crimes through these killings because such criminals are a “stigma” on society.
I responded in my own speech at that seminar by stating clearly that it is not the job of the police to decide who lives or dies. Those decisions must be made by the judiciary. Often, police claim that the courts and the investigative system are too weak to control crime, so they take matters into their own hands. Alarmingly, even some citizens feel happy when a criminal is killed this way. What many innocent people do not understand is that this practice is unconstitutional and completely unlawful.
If a suspect is already in police custody, it is the state’s job to keep them safe. If they are truly killed by others while in custody, it shows a massive failure in security. If the truth is different, then it is an illegal killing by the state. In either case, the rules of our Constitution are broken. No law enforcement agency has the power to act as a court or decide who is guilty and who should die on the street.
Another worrying phrase has become common in public talk: “shot in the waist.” In cases of terrible crimes like rape, this language is often used to suggest that the suspect got “instant justice.” No one disagrees that rape is a horrible crime that deserves the toughest punishment. However, that punishment must be decided by a judge after a trial. When the police replace the law with their own force, it destroys public trust and makes the entire justice system look weak.
When people face many different criminal cases, the right answer is not to kill them without a trial. The real answer is to fix the system. We need to make investigations stronger, collect better evidence, protect witnesses, and make sure government lawyers can win cases. Getting a legal conviction in a courtroom sends a much stronger and more lasting message than taking “shortcuts” that avoid the law.
The silence of lawyers, judges, and professional groups about these growing practices is also a major concern. When these illegal killings are not challenged, people slowly start to think they are normal. This “normalization” has dangerous long-term effects on our basic freedoms and our democracy. Controlling crime is necessary, but ignoring the Constitution’s protections shows that our institutions are weak, not strong. True public safety depends on a mix of effective policing, court reforms, and transparency about what is happening. Without these pillars, any small win we see today will lead to much bigger damage to our society in the future.
If we allow the police to have unchecked power today in the name of stopping crime, that same power might be used tomorrow against people who disagree with the government, political rivals, or ordinary citizens. The rule of law is the only shield that protects both the power of the government and the rights of every person.
The government must stop relying on “quick fixes” through police encounters. We demand a shift toward deep institutional reform. This includes increasing the budget for modern forensic investigations, providing better training for the police on human rights, and ensuring that every police encounter is investigated by an independent body. True strength lies in a government that can convict criminals through the law, not outside of it.
The courts must also take notice of the rising number of “encounters” and the culture of “half fry” and “full fry” justice. We call upon the judiciary to hold law enforcement agencies accountable for deaths in custody. The legal system must speed up the trial process for serious crimes so that the public does not feel the need for “street justice.” The judiciary is the last line of defense for the Constitution; it must act now to ensure that the rule of law remains supreme.
About the Author:
Muhammad Anwar is a civil society member and development sector professional with over three decades of experience in institutional strengthening, civic engagement, and community-based initiatives in Pakistan.
