Private Security Agencies Using Term "Bouncers" To Invoke Fear In Citizens, Punjab Govt Insensitive Towards Issue: High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has flagged a "disturbing trend" in which, under the guise of the seemingly simple job title of “Bouncer,” employers are increasingly enabling a culture of intimidation and bullying.

While allowing a pre-arrest bail, the Court was disturbed with the word “Bouncer” used in the name of security organisation “Fateh Bouncer Security Group” which the petitioner was allegedly running.

The Court observed that such individuals are becoming "too comfortable donning an armor of hostility and aggression," often subjecting citizens to indignity and humiliation at will, while presuming themselves to wield unfettered power above the law.

"Today, in this part of our country, using the term "Bouncers" for workers in security agencies is intended to serve a dual purpose; to invoke fear, anxiety, and terror in the mind of the public and to intimidate others. This, in any civilized setup, is impermissible, even for the State, especially in a democratic setup, and it is demeaning in the sense that it reflexively strips off any empathetic or humanistic qualities found in a person, leaving behind a degraded, damaged, negative, and robotic connotation, akin to slaves working on the whims and commands of their master," the judge said.

The Court added that, it reduces the "respectable role of a trained security guard to that of an enforcer, who operates through confrontation and intimidation rather than respectful civil dialogue."

It highlighted that such, agents or employees with their varied roles, titles, and descriptions including 'bouncers', "are not above law or other human beings and are certainly not the enforcers of the law."

State Insensitive Towards Issue

The Court observed that the The State is also aware of how the term 'bouncer' is being used by security agencies to throw around their weight and exert their influence, as explicitly mentioned in this FIR

However, the State chooses to remain unperturbed, unconcerned, and, therefore, insensitive towards such an issue, added the judge.

The Court further said that, the concern is the passive endorsement of the term “Bouncer” by the State or the Executive, being oblivious as to what it has started to represent.

"It is beyond comprehension how the identity of a particular section of employees or workers can so restrictively be permitted by the State to be defined, named, or termed as a “Bouncer”," the bench added.

Court's Role Is To Sensitize, Up to State To Take Any Step

The judge emphasized that the Court's role is to sensitize and guide the Executive rather than to issue directives on matters that fall within the purview of state governance. In this context, the judge clarified that it is ultimately the State's prerogative to decide whether or not to implement measures aimed at discouraging the use of the term "Bouncer" by recovery or security agents and their agencies.

The underlying concern, as highlighted by the Court, is the negative connotation and perception that such terminology fosters, which may encourage a culture of aggression and intimidation among security personnel.

"It is up to the State to take or not to take any steps to ensure that the term "Bouncer" is not used by any recovery or security agents or their agencies for their employees so that these security guards/personnel associate their respective roles with respect, dignity and responsibility and view their jobs in the right light, taking into consideration the civic duty, responsibility and accountability attached to such positions and not see themselves merely as people employed to showcase unwarranted muscle power and aggression, meting out humiliation and unjust, harsh treatment to innocent citizens," said the Court.

These observations were made while allowing a pre-arrest bail plea filed by a man accused of abusing the complainant on social media platforms. It was also alleged that the petitioner is engaged in deceitful practices by running an unlicensed security agency named "Fateh Group," without any legal authorization or license from the Punjab Government, in violation of the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007.

Perusing the State's reply, the Court opined that it is not the case "where pre-trial custodial interrogation is required or would be justified."

Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate (Through video conferencing) for the complainant.

Title: Taranjeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order