The Supreme Court recently ruled that police personnel firing upon a civilian vehicle while in plain clothes does not fall under the scope of official duty. This decision came as the court dismissed appeals from nine police officers who sought to quash murder charges against them related to an alleged fake encounter case. The bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, upheld a previous ruling from the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had refused to dismiss the case.

The court's findings indicated that the actions of these officers—surrounding a civilian vehicle and opening fire—were not connected to maintaining public order or lawful arrest. The justices emphasized that acts intended to obstruct justice cannot be shielded by claims of official duty. They noted that prior sanction was unnecessary for prosecuting these officers due to the nature of their alleged actions.

In addition, the court reinstated charges against Deputy Commissioner of Police Parampal Singh for allegedly directing the removal of evidence following the incident in 2015, which resulted in a driver’s death. The Supreme Court stated that such conduct, which aimed at erasing potential evidence, could not be justified as part of any bona fide police duty.

The ruling highlighted that credible witness accounts and supporting evidence—including CCTV footage—provided sufficient grounds for proceeding with charges against the accused policemen. The bench concluded that there was no legal error in earlier decisions summoning these individuals for trial based on prima facie evidence indicating their involvement in a concerted firearm assault on June 16, 2015.

Original article

The text presents a plethora of biases and manipulative language, revealing a complex web of ideological and structural influences. One of the most striking aspects is the cultural and ideological bias that permeates the narrative. The text assumes a Western liberal democratic framework, where individual rights and freedoms are paramount, and the rule of law is sacrosanct. This worldview is reflected in the emphasis on upholding charges against police officers who allegedly engaged in extrajudicial killings, highlighting the importance of accountability and due process.

However, this framing also reveals a bias against authoritarian or paternalistic systems, which are often prevalent in non-Western societies. The text's implicit critique of police actions can be seen as reinforcing a particular notion of "good governance" that prioritizes individual rights over collective security or social order. This dichotomy reflects a binary thinking that pits individual freedoms against state authority, rather than acknowledging the complexities of policing in diverse cultural contexts.

Furthermore, the text exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. Phrases such as "fake encounter case" and "murder charges" create a sense of moral outrage, while terms like "bona fide police duty" are used to delegitimize police actions. This emotive framing obscures nuanced discussions about policing practices and instead reinforces a simplistic narrative about good vs. evil.

The selection and omission bias is also evident in the text's focus on individual officers' actions rather than broader systemic issues within the police force or society at large. By highlighting specific instances of alleged misconduct, the narrative creates an impression that these events are isolated aberrations rather than symptoms of deeper structural problems. This selective focus reinforces a narrative that emphasizes personal accountability over institutional reform.

Moreover, the text exhibits temporal bias by presenting historical events as if they occurred in isolation from broader social contexts. The 2015 incident is described as an isolated event without considering how it might be linked to larger patterns of policing practices or societal tensions within India at that time. This presentist approach erases historical context and reduces complex issues to simplistic moral judgments.

In terms of economic and class-based bias, there is no explicit discussion about economic factors influencing policing practices or social unrest in India. However, by focusing on individual officers' actions rather than systemic issues like poverty or inequality, the narrative subtly reinforces an economic status quo where wealthier individuals (like those behind corporate interests) may be more likely to receive favorable treatment from law enforcement.

Structural and institutional bias is also present in how certain facts are presented as self-evident truths without critical examination. For instance, when discussing prior sanction for prosecuting these officers being unnecessary due to their alleged actions being outside official duty scope; this statement assumes an unproblematic understanding regarding what constitutes legitimate public order maintenance duties without questioning what exactly those duties entail under Indian law; thus reinforcing existing power structures within institutions governing public safety & security apparatuses nationwide – leaving unchallenged hierarchies embedded within them which disproportionately affect marginalized groups seeking redressal through legal means available under current system governing country’s justice delivery mechanisms