The case, filed as a public interest litigation (PIL), accused the Assam government of violating Supreme Court-mandated guidelines from the 2014 PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties) case, which set the legal framework for investigating police encounters.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 28) directed Assam Human Rights Commission to probe the alleged cases of fake encounter killings by police in Assam.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Orders SIT Under DGP in Badlapur ‘Fake’ Encounter Case: Overrules Bombay HC
The case, filed as a public interest litigation (PIL), accused the Assam government of violating Supreme Court-mandated guidelines from the 2014 PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties) case, which set the legal framework for investigating police encounters.
A two-judge Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh pronounced the judgment and issued key directions aimed at ensuring a fair and independent probe into the matter.
The Court, while acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, struck a balance between judicial oversight and the need for institutional investigation mechanisms.
Justice Surya Kant, while delivering the verdict, said:
“This case concerns police encounters in Assam. The use of excessive or illegal force by public officials cannot be justified. We have clarified that merely compiling cases does not warrant judicial intervention, as it could end up protecting the guilty.”
He explained that although the petitioner had submitted a long list of encounters, including 117 individual cases, the Court could not automatically treat them as fake without proper examination.
“Thus we have said that we have acknowledged the role of Petitioner since… The appellant had submitted 117 individual instances. The allegation that it may include fake encounters is serious. The probe to find out genuine cases is important. PIL cannot be a substitute for procedural safeguards. Justice must be individualized.”
The Bench added that many of the claims alleging non-compliance with the PUCL guidelines were not backed by facts.
“The court has found that numerous claims alleging non-compliance with PUCL guidelines were factually incorrect. Our preliminary assessment also indicates these allegations lacked merit. Article 21 of the Constitution requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards, which is essential to maintain public trust in the rule of law.”
However, the Court did not rule out the possibility that some of these alleged encounters may indeed be questionable and need deeper investigation.
“Some instances may warrant further evaluation…observations should not be seen as casting aspersions on state authorities…an impartial and independent institution required to undertake examination…”
Justice Surya Kant emphasised the importance of the Human Rights Commissions in such matters and noted recent improvements in the leadership of the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
ALSO READ: Special CBI Court Convicts Retired Punjab DIG, Ex-DSP in 1993 Fake Encounter Case
“The Human Rights Commissions at both state and national levels play a vital role in safeguarding rights. We note that the Assam Human Rights Commission is now under the leadership of an eminent legal expert. Accordingly, we direct this inquiry to be handled by the Assam Human Rights Commission. The 2022 decision of the State Human Rights Commission is hereby overturned, and the matter is to be reconsidered by the SHRC.”
He also reminded authorities to treat the matter with sensitivity and ensure the safety and privacy of affected individuals:
“Protection of such identities important…Commission to approach with sensitivity…it shall be at liberty to initiate further investigation into allegations…State of Assam to cooperate fully and remove any institutional barriers.”
Further, the Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission to notify the public through newspapers and ensure that the voices of affected families are heard.
“The State Human Rights Commission shall issue public notices in both English and local newspapers to inform all concerned parties about these proceedings, ensuring affected families have an opportunity to be heard. The SHRC may additionally appoint independent members to assist in this process. The state government is ordered to provide full forensic support and necessary resources to the Commission, while also eliminating any administrative obstacles that might hinder their investigation.”
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised concerns regarding the legal representation of the petitioners.
“Only one request I’ll make. Yeah, but the last part yours may reconsider. Let the human rights Commission provide the lawyer mallowd, not this lawyer.”
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Sentences Ex-Cop Pradeep Sharma to Life for Fake Encounter
To this, Justice Surya Kant clarified:
“They can engage him, we have said that.”
SG Mehta cautioned that it might encourage misuse.
“That might encourage blackmailing. I am sorry to use this mylord.”
Justice Surya Kant responded firmly:
“Have faith in the system Mr Mehta. If any individual wants, they can engage him.”
On February 4, the Supreme Court made it clear that it would not examine the merit of the 171 alleged police encounter cases in Assam. Instead, the court said it would only look into whether its 2014 guidelines on encounter investigations were followed properly.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Supreme Court’s guidelines issued in 2014 had been “grossly violated”. He pointed to letters from the families of the victims and those injured in these alleged encounters, highlighting serious lapses in compliance.
Bhushan also stated that in most cases, the FIRs were registered against the victims themselves, even though the Supreme Court’s guidelines clearly say that FIRs should be filed against the police officers responsible for the killings.
The petition was filed to challenge a January 2023 ruling by the Gauhati High Court, which had dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the Assam Police encounters.
In that order, the High Court referred to an affidavit submitted by the Assam government. The affidavit stated that 171 incidents occurred between May 2021 and August 2022, during which 56 people died—including four in custody—and 145 others were injured.
Earlier, on October 22, 2023, the Supreme Court had described the matter as “very serious” and had asked for detailed reports on the investigations conducted in each of the cases.
In July 2023, the top court had also issued notices to the Assam government and other concerned parties, seeking their responses on the petition that challenged the High Court’s order.
The petitioner told the High Court that more than 80 “fake encounters” had allegedly taken place between May 2021 and the time the writ petition was filed. These alleged encounters reportedly led to the deaths of 28 individuals.
Case Name: ARIF MD YEASIN JWADDER Versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.| 1503 SLP(Crl) No. 7929/2023 II
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
