Thin Accountability, Perverted Discretion, and Systemic Failure: Applying Bovens, Raz, Fuller, and Democratic Policing Theory to the Police of Punjab, Pakistan

Abstract

The system for police accountability in Punjab includes constitutional guarantees, the oversight of statutory mechanisms established by the Police Order 2002, disciplinary action procedures, recourse to judicial remedies, and the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act 2022. Nevertheless, court rulings and human rights reports have continued to report illegal detention, refusal to register complaints, and instances of custodial torture. This article seeks to explain why the system of safeguards in Punjab does not effectively guarantee police accountability. It uses Bovens’s definition of accountability as the relationship between an actor and a forum, Raz’s rule of law principle on the discretion of crime prevention organizations, Fuller’s principle of congruence, and democratic policing approach in Bayley’s tradition. Three interrelated but distinct issues are differentiated: failure to operationalize statutory oversight institutions, illegal/incongruent exercise of powers available, and the systemic incentive structure that enables this state of affairs. The core argument in this paper is qualified: the problem is primarily operational but not solely operational. Legal examination is further needed in relation to the Police Order itself, the history of the amendments made to it, the issues of procedure in respect of prosecuting offenders, and the relationship between the Torture Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context, doctrinal analysis and documentary analysis, utilizing the cases provided, are employed in making reform suggestions.