Ethics · 22 Jul 2026

PUCL v State of Maharashtra encounter guidelines

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's guidelines on police encounter deaths:

  1. PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014) laid down 16 guidelines requiring independent magisterial inquiry into every police encounter resulting in death.
  2. The guidelines presume police guilt in every encounter death unless proven otherwise by the investigating officer.
  3. A Supreme Court-appointed commission later found that the 2019 Hyderabad "Disha case" encounter, despite being publicly celebrated, was staged and not a genuine act of self-defence.
  4. The guidelines require forensic verification as part of the mandated inquiry process.

How many of the above statements are correct?

AOnly one
BOnly two
COnly three
DAll four

Tests the ability to distinguish what a legal safeguard actually requires (neutral verification) from a plausible-sounding misreading (presumption of guilt), while also verifying a specific precedent case outcome.

Subscribe / Login in App →
About this question

Why in news

A suspect in a child rape-murder case in Gujarat's Anand district was shot dead by police in an alleged encounter, drawing widespread public approval and reviving debate on the PUCL guidelines' application.

Why for UPSC

UPSC's GS4 ethics questions often test whether an aspirant understands that legal safeguards exist to verify claims neutrally, not to presume guilt or innocence - a distinction this question probes directly alongside a relevant precedent case.

Prelims summary

PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014) mandates independent magisterial inquiry and forensic verification for every encounter death, without presuming police guilt; the Hyderabad Disha case (2019) later confirmed by commission to have been staged despite public celebration, illustrates why such inquiry matters.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.