Bouncers’ bullying role irks high court, state told to review term

Making it clear that invoking fear, anxiety, and terror in the minds of the public through so-called “bouncers” is impermissible, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the state for its unconcerned stance despite being fully aware of the misuse. The bench, at the same time, left it to the Executive to take — or not take — steps to ensure that the term “bouncer” is no longer used by recovery or security agents for their employees.

“The role this court has assigned to itself is to sensitise the Executive and 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,” the bench asserted.

The assertion came as the bench referred to the “disturbing trend” of “a particular segment of employers and employees” adopting a terrorising and bullying role under the guise of “bouncers”. The court asserted that the bouncers were becoming too comfortable donning an armour of hostility, aggression and subjecting the citizenry to “indignity and humiliation at will, unafraid of any negative consequences, presuming themselves to have unfettered powers over the law”.

The bench added using the term “bouncers” served a dual purpose – to invoke fear, anxiety, and terror in the mind of the public and to intimidate others. This, the bench asserted, was impermissible. “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 court added it reduced the respectable role of a trained security guard to that of an enforcer operating through confrontation and intimidation rather than respectful civil dialogue. “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,” the bench asserted. The court added the state was also aware of how the term ‘bouncer’ was being used by security agencies to throw around their weight and exert their influence, but it chooses to remain “unperturbed, unconcerned, and, therefore, insensitive towards such an issue”.

Quoting dictionary definitions, the court noted that the role of a bouncer was to eject unruly persons. But the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, and Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007, did not use or recognise the term “bouncer.”

“They are hired because they are trained in rapid emergency responses, skilled at being hyper-vigilant in monitoring, controlling, and reporting any nuisance, threat, or criminal activity to the police or concerned authorities, and de-escalating potentially volatile situations to ascertain the wellbeing, safety, and security of those around. However, when these same employers or employees become miscreants, assuming to be extra-constitutional authorities and taking pride in exuberant arrogance, using threats, intimidation, physical coercion, and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for society,” the bench added.

The court concluded by saying agents or employees with their varied roles, titles, and descriptions including ‘bouncers’, were not above “law or other human beings and are certainly not the enforcers of the law.”

Punjab