Summary
Parvinder Singh, known as Jhota, a 42-year-old anti-drug campaigner and former boxer who ran the "Nasha Roko, Rozgaar Do" campaign, was shot dead in a Mansa market on 13 October 2026. He had confronted medical-store owner Ashwani Kumar over the alleged sale of synthetic drugs to an elderly man.
Police say Kumar fired a licensed pistol; Jhota took three bullets and four companions were hurt. Kumar was arrested the next day in Salasar, Rajasthan. Their history was violent on both sides. In July 2023, Jhota's group blackened Kumar's face, garlanded him with shoes and paraded him on a donkey and Jhota was booked for assault and trespass.
That September, by his lawyer's account, the state opposed his plea for protection. The case poses a hard question: should the state protect a citizen who exposes crime but has himself used vigilante methods? The answer this piece defends is that protection must follow the threat, not the person's character.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
The daylight killing of an anti-drug activist during a live broadcast set off protests, a refusal by his family to cremate the body until demands were met and a call for a Punjab bandh on 15 October 2026. Protesters sought a CBI probe and the resignations of the Chief Minister and DGP. Reports that the state had opposed his 2023 protection plea put its duty of care at the centre of the debate.
Standard News
The State Assessed His Character When It Should Have Assessed His Risk
Imagine you are the officer who must reply to a protection petition. The petitioner has exposed drug sales at chemist shops, which is real public service in a state battling addiction. He has also led a group that blackened a chemist's face, garlanded him with shoes and paraded him on a donkey.
He faces his own case for assault and trespass. He says he is being threatened. The easy answer would be that the law should not shield someone who takes the law into his own hands. That answer feels principled. In Mansa, it may also have been fatal.
What actually happened By his lawyer's account, the Punjab government opposed Parvinder Singh Jhota's protection plea in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in September 2023.
It called him a habitual offender and said there was no genuine threat to his life. On 13 October 2026, Jhota confronted Ashwani Kumar - the same chemist his group had paraded in 2023 - over the alleged sale of synthetic drugs to an elderly man.
He was streaming live. Police say Kumar fired a licensed pistol. Jhota was hit three times and declared brought dead; four companions were injured. Bathinda Range DIG Harjeet Singh pointed to old personal enmity.
Two obligations, both real The duty to protect. The state owes protection to anyone whose life is under credible threat.
That duty attaches to the person's risk, not to their virtue. A history of hostility with a particular person is not a reason to deny protection. It is evidence that a threat is real. The duty not to reward vigilantism. In *Tehseen S.
Poonawalla v. Union of India* (2018), the Supreme Court held that no citizen or group may appoint itself enforcer or punisher. A state that seems to bless vigilante raids invites more of them. That concern is not hypothetical: after the killing, local committees reportedly threatened to conduct their own searches of suspected drug outlets.
Both are genuine. A good officer could feel the pull of either.
Where the
reasoning should land The two duties only seem to collide because "protection" is treated as endorsement. It is not. The state can do both at once:
- protect the person, because the threat is assessed as credible; - prosecute his unlawful acts, as it did in 2023; - condition the protection, so that police accompany any complaint but the activist does not conduct raids. What the state cannot do is let its disapproval of the person decide whether he lives.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh alias Jhota, 42, was shot dead in Mansa, Punjab, on 13 October 2026 while streaming live on Facebook.
-
Police said the accused, medical-store owner Ashwani Kumar, used a licensed pistol.
-
Jhota sustained three gunshot wounds and four of his companions were injured.
-
Ashwani Kumar was arrested on 14 October 2026 in Salasar, Rajasthan.
-
An FIR was registered under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which covers murder and the Arms Act.
-
In July 2023, Jhota's group publicly paraded Kumar on a donkey and Jhota was booked for assault and trespass.
-
Protesters called a Punjab bandh on 15 October 2026 and demanded a CBI probe.
-
In Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court condemned vigilantism and directed states to act against it.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
A step-by-step look at how the 2023 protection decision should have been made, using threat assessment rather than character assessment.
The full ethical weighing - deontological duty to protect life against the consequentialist risk of encouraging vigilantism - applied to this case's facts.
How the Rajat Kalsan case in Haryana raised the same question of protecting an activist with FIRs against him.
A reform agenda for Punjab: complaint channels against drug sales that make vigilante raids unnecessary, plus conditional protection protocols.
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free