TWO DEAD IN TWO POLICE SHOOTINGS, ONE QUESTION FOR THE STATE: IS BENGAL IMPORTING EXTRAJUDICIAL JUSTICE?

October 28, 2026

KOLKATA, OCTOBER 28, 2026 — Two fatal police shootings within approximately 24 hours have triggered a political confrontation in West Bengal, with leaders of the Trinamool Congress, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Congress raising questions about police accountability, constitutional safeguards and the circumstances in which suspects lose their lives before standing trial. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has defended the police response, presenting the incidents as evidence of a tougher approach towards serious crime.

The controversy centres on the deaths of two men accused in separate criminal cases. Prahlad Das, accused in the rape and murder of a minor girl in Gaighata, North 24-Parganas district, was shot dead late on Monday night. On Tuesday, Shamaun Sheikh, accused of murdering BJP worker Sujit Mondal, was killed in a separate police shooting in the Dhulian area of Murshidabad district.

According to the police, both men were taken to locations connected with their respective cases for crime-scene reconstruction. Investigators alleged that the suspects seized firearms from police personnel and opened fire, prompting retaliatory shooting. These accounts form the official explanation for the deaths; the precise circumstances surrounding each incident remain matters for scrutiny.

The similarity between the two accounts has become the central point of political contention. Opposition leaders have questioned how suspects under police escort could allegedly seize service firearms in separate incidents and why the operations resulted in fatal shootings. Their criticism does not amount to a defence of the crimes the men were accused of committing. Rather, they argue that serious allegations must be established through investigation and trial, while the conduct of the police must remain subject to law.

Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, a senior Trinamool Congress leader and MLA from Ballygunge, questioned the political significance being attached to the shootings. He warned that encounters might generate publicity but insisted that the country must be governed by the rule of law. He also questioned what had happened to the legal frameworks introduced in Bengal to ensure speedier punishment for heinous crimes.

His intervention was notable because it placed the debate beyond the conventional divide between supporters of the government and its opponents. The question, as raised by Chattopadhyay, is whether the demand for swift justice can be reconciled with procedures that establish guilt through the courts rather than through the use of lethal force.

Md Salim, the CPI(M)'s state secretary, went further, describing the shootings as staged encounters. In a post on X, he accused the administration of following what he called a scripted pattern, comparing the two cases with the earlier killing of a rape-and-murder accused in Baruipur in July. Salim also alleged that criminality and mob violence had increased under the present government. Those broader claims are political allegations and require assessment against independently established evidence.

Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury raised questions about police training, firearm security and constitutional accountability. He pointed to the repeated claim that accused persons had snatched officers' weapons and fired at police teams. If such incidents are occurring under similar circumstances, he argued, the competence and procedures of the police deserve examination.

Chowdhury stressed that questioning the shootings should not be mistaken for supporting the accused. His central objection was that determining guilt and imposing punishment are functions of the legal system, not of a political party or a police unit acting outside judicial oversight. He also argued that killing suspects before trial could prevent investigators from uncovering the possible involvement of other people in the alleged crimes.

The criticism has revived the wider debate over so-called encounter policing in India, particularly the political appeal of forceful responses to crimes that provoke public outrage. Such incidents often generate competing demands: victims and their families seek swift accountability, while civil-rights advocates insist that even the most serious allegations cannot displace the safeguards that constrain state power.

The BJP government has rejected the Opposition's characterisation of the shootings. Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari said the matter was being examined by the police and the Criminal Investigation Department, adding that the operational circumstances of the encounters were not directly within his jurisdiction. He also promised a tougher campaign against criminal activity across the state.

Senior BJP leader Dilip Ghosh defended the use of force, arguing that police sometimes have to take unpopular steps to restore public confidence. He maintained that those who commit serious crimes and subsequently defy the police must face consequences. The BJP's state president, Samik Bhattacharya, meanwhile, rejected the description of the incidents as conventional encounters, asserting that the police had been compelled to fire in self-defence.

The party also contrasted its approach with that of the previous Trinamool Congress administration, which it accused of allowing lawlessness to flourish. Its defence presents the shootings as part of an effort to restore public security. The Opposition, by contrast, argues that the government risks normalising a method of policing in which the official account of an exchange of fire becomes the final word before independent scrutiny has established what occurred.

The earlier incident in Baruipur has intensified these concerns. In July, the prime accused in the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl was killed after police alleged that he had seized an officer's revolver and fired during crime-scene reconstruction. The resemblance between that account and the explanations offered in the Gaighata and Murshidabad cases has become a major focus of the current political debate.

The essential issue is not whether the state should act firmly against rape, murder or other serious crimes. It is whether that action is conducted within a framework that protects the public while holding the police accountable. A police officer may lawfully use necessary force to meet an imminent threat, but the justification for lethal force depends on the actual circumstances, not merely on the seriousness of the allegation against the person who died.

A credible examination of the two shootings would therefore need to establish the sequence of events, the circumstances of firearm possession, the threat allegedly faced by the police teams and the necessity of the force used. Relevant physical evidence, medical findings, weapon records, witness accounts and other available material may all be important in determining whether the official accounts withstand scrutiny. The precise investigative steps and findings must be established by the competent authorities rather than assumed.

The debate also raises a question about the practical meaning of the rule of law. If suspects are killed before trial, courts cannot determine their guilt, victims' families may never hear evidence tested in proceedings against them, and investigators may lose opportunities to question the accused about the involvement of others. Conversely, where police genuinely face an immediate threat to life, their actions must be assessed against the evidence and the law governing the use of force.

For the government, the challenge is to demonstrate that a tougher approach to crime does not weaken the accountability expected of the state itself. For the Opposition, the challenge is to ensure that its criticism remains grounded in verifiable evidence while continuing to demand transparent investigations. For the public, the stakes concern both protection from serious crime and protection against the arbitrary exercise of official power.

The deaths of Prahlad Das and Shamaun Sheikh have thus opened a contentious debate about the boundary between police self-defence and extrajudicial punishment. The allegations against the two men were serious, but neither allegation could substitute for a judicial determination of guilt. The decisive question is whether the circumstances of the shootings can be established through credible, independent scrutiny—and whether the state will insist upon the same legal discipline in its own conduct that it demands of every citizen.