The rejection of the CBI’s closure report in the Kamlesh Prajapati case in Jodhpur reflects deep-rooted anxieties about the erosion of accountability in law enforcement. It echoes incidents like custodial deaths in Tamil Nadu and the Hyderabad encounter, pointing to a growing culture of impunity. These events contrast starkly with the legacy of upright officers who uphold constitutional morality. This contradiction underscores a systemic crisis in the Indian legal framework, where institutional failures are cloaked in procedural legality.
What Happened?
Kamlesh Prajapati was killed by the police in Jodhpur, who claimed it was an encounter, meaning he was shot while trying to escape or attack. But later findings suggested it might have been a fake encounter, staged to look legal.
Why Is It Suspicious?
The police were accused of faking evidence and creating a false story to cover up the killing. The court noticed that the police version of events didn’t match the facts, raising serious doubts.
Kamlesh Prajapati was killed in an alleged police encounter in Jodhpur. While the police claimed it was a lawful act during a confrontation, later investigations suggested it might have been a fake encounter, with fabricated evidence used to justify the killing. The case raised serious doubts about police conduct and possible misuse of power by senior officials.
Legal Lacunas and the Erosion of the Rule of Law
The Prajapati encounter case lays bare the fragility of India’s legal safeguards. Despite codified protections in the IPC and CrPC, the system struggles against powerful forces that manipulate due process. Judicial remarks exposing police fabrications highlight the dangers of unchecked discretion. [1]The absence of prompt legal oversight continues to foster an environment where encounter killings can be orchestrated with impunity.
Though recent Supreme Court rulings attempt to enforce procedural transparency, enforcement gaps remain wide. Administrative guidelines restricting police conduct are routinely breached[2]. As seen in scams like Vyapam and land allocation irregularities, procedural formality often conceals corrupt practices. This shows that laws without institutional integrity are insufficient.
A Critical Appraisal of the Legal Breakdown
From the lens of a legal researcher, the Prajapati case raises several issues:
- Institutional Negligence: The involvement of senior officials, including SP Kaluram Rawat, indicates that accountability mechanisms are fundamentally compromised.
- Breach of Trust: Fake encounters damage the public’s faith in the state. Honest officers appear isolated in systems that reward concealment and penalize transparency.
- Legal Reforms Urgently Needed: Statutory mandates must be paired with enforceable compliance measures. Judgments alone cannot fix a system designed to bypass scrutiny.
The contradiction between theory and practice in law enforcement must be addressed. Strengthening judicial review, independent investigative bodies, and evidence authentication procedures is essential to restoring rule-of-law standards.
Conclusion
The Prajapati encounter case is not just a legal episode—it is a constitutional reckoning. It forces a reassessment of whether justice in India is accessible, impartial, and safeguarded. The debate must now move beyond punishment to prevention. Institutional ethics, legal deterrence, and civic engagement must coalesce into a framework that prevents such miscarriages of justice.
This case is a mirror reflecting systemic decay and a call for transformation. As long as the law remains a tool of selective enforcement, the public’s faith will falter. The ultimate question remains: Can India’s legal system evolve from performative legality to substantive justice?