Introduction: When Crime Control Becomes a Question of Legitimacy

Across Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous province, a growing debate is unfolding around the meaning of “crime control.” The rise of aggressive policing strategies, especially under the Crime Control Department (CCD) of the Punjab Police, has been accompanied by a sharp increase in reported “police encounter” deaths.

According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), more than 670 fatalities occurred in police encounters in Punjab in a single year, making it the highest in the country. These figures raise a difficult but necessary question: are these operations genuinely about public safety, or do they reflect a deeper pattern of state criminality under the guise of law enforcement?

This article explores the dynamics of extrajudicial killings, zero-tolerance policing, state power, and human rights violations in Punjab, while situating them within broader debates on policing and accountability.

The Rise of Zero-Tolerance Policing in Punjab

Punjab’s Crime Control Department (CCD) was established through executive and legislative measures aimed at strengthening “zero crime policy” enforcement. The official narrative frames CCD as a specialized unit designed to eliminate organized crime, drug networks, and violent offenders.

However, critics argue that this model reflects an expansion of militarized policing, where law enforcement is empowered with broad discretion and minimal oversight.

The CCD combines:

• Operational policing
• Intelligence gathering
• Digital surveillance
• Investigative authority

This concentration of power raises concerns about due process and constitutional safeguards, especially when lethal force becomes a routine outcome of “encounters.”

For official context on policing structures, see the Punjab Police framework:

Police Encounters and the Pattern of Extrajudicial Killings

The standard encounter narrative is widely recognized in Pakistan: suspects allegedly attack police during arrest or transport, prompting retaliatory gunfire. In most reported cases, fatalities occur on the suspect’s side, while law enforcement casualties remain minimal.

Between January and June 2025 alone, over 400 individuals were reportedly killed in CCD operations across Punjab. In some documented instances, multiple suspects were killed in a single day during coordinated operations.

Legal petitions filed in the Lahore High Court have argued that these killings are effectively extrajudicial executions disguised as lawful encounters, bypassing the judicial system entirely.

From a human rights perspective, this raises serious concerns under:

• Article 9 (Right to life and liberty)
• Article 10A (Right to a fair trial)

These constitutional protections are central to Pakistan’s legal system and are also reinforced by international obligations.

State Crime Theory: Understanding Institutional Violence

Critical criminology offers an important framework for analyzing this phenomenon. Scholars such as Penny Green and Tony Ward define state crime as organizational wrongdoing involving human rights violations committed or enabled by state institutions.

This includes:

• Extrajudicial killings
• Torture in custody
• State terrorism
• Systemic denial of due process

Under this lens, police violence is not merely individual misconduct but may reflect institutional and political structures that enable excessive force.

For Pakistan’s legal obligations under international law, see the ICCPR:

The Political Economy of Policing: Why Encounters Persist

Police encounters are not isolated incidents. They are shaped by political incentives, institutional culture, and public attitudes toward crime and punishment.

Key drivers include:

1. Political Pressure for Quick Results

Governments often prioritize visible reductions in crime rates. Encounters become a “fast solution” that produces immediate statistics, even if legality is questionable.

2. Institutional Incentives

Within militarized policing systems, success is frequently measured in arrests and “neutralizations,” not convictions.

3. Public Endorsement of Punitive Justice

Segments of society support harsh punishment for individuals labeled as criminals, including drug dealers, gang members, or alleged violent offenders.

This creates a permissive environment where state violence is normalized as crime control.

Class, Power, and the “Respectable Public”

A crucial dimension of this debate lies in social inequality. The concept of the “respectable public” helps explain why extrajudicial killings often face limited resistance.

Those with economic and social privilege:

• Rarely interact directly with frontline policing
• Have access to legal remedies and political influence
• Are less likely to be subject to arbitrary detention

Meanwhile, marginalized communities often bear the brunt of aggressive policing. This includes working-class neighborhoods, ethnic minorities, and politically vulnerable groups.

This structural divide contributes to a dangerous normalization of violence against the so-called “rough public,” where state excesses are seen as justified or even necessary.

Digital Surveillance and the Expansion of State Power

Punjab’s policing strategy is increasingly supported by digital infrastructure, including:

• CCTV surveillance systems
• Geo-fencing tools
• Call data records
• Predictive policing databases

While these tools are often presented as modern solutions for efficiency and transparency, their integration with enforcement units like CCD raises new concerns.

Instead of reducing violence, surveillance may:

• Increase targeting efficiency without improving accountability
• Expand state reach into civilian life
• Strengthen enforcement without judicial oversight

The key unresolved question is whether surveillance systems are being used to prevent crime or facilitate unaccountable enforcement practices.

Legal Framework and Constitutional Violations

Pakistan’s legal system clearly prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life. Encounters that bypass judicial scrutiny may violate:

• Article 9: Right to life
• Article 10A: Right to a fair trial
• Police Order provisions requiring independent review of use of force
• Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2022

Despite these safeguards, enforcement remains weak. Reports suggest that many deaths are not followed by independent investigations or transparent judicial inquiries.

This gap between law and practice is central to allegations of systemic impunity.

International Human Rights Obligations

As a signatory to the ICCPR, Pakistan is legally obligated to:

• Protect the right to life
• Prevent arbitrary killings
• Ensure independent investigations into state violence
• Provide accountability mechanisms

Failure to comply with these obligations places Pakistan under international scrutiny and raises questions about rule-of-law governance.

The Limits of Institutional Reform

Efforts to reform policing in Punjab have focused heavily on modernization and digitalization. However, reform without accountability may simply strengthen enforcement capacity without addressing misuse of power.

Key limitations include:

• Lack of independent police oversight
• Weak judicial enforcement of accountability laws
• Absence of transparent encounter investigations
• Political influence over policing priorities

Without structural reform, technological upgrades risk reinforcing rather than reducing coercive practices.

Conclusion: Crime Control or State Criminality?

The rise of encounter killings in Punjab highlights a critical tension between security governance and constitutional democracy. While the state frames these actions as necessary for crime control, the scale and pattern of deaths raise serious concerns about legality, proportionality, and accountability.

From a human rights perspective, the issue is not simply about policing effectiveness. It is about whether the state itself is operating within or outside the boundaries of law.

If extrajudicial killings replace due process, then the justice system risks becoming what it is meant to prevent: a mechanism of unchecked power.

For citizens, policymakers, and institutions, the central question remains urgent:

Can crime control ever be justified if it comes at the cost of constitutional rights and the rule of law?