Chhattisgarh High Court Restricts SIT Probes into Anti-Naxal Operations, Citing Federalism and Lack of Evidence

Raipur, Chhattisgarh – In a significant ruling that delineates the boundaries of judicial oversight in counter-insurgency, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that regular anti-naxal operations by security forces cannot be subjected to investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) absent "exceptional circumstances." The decision reinforces the operational autonomy of state and central agencies in conflict zones and sets a high evidentiary bar for petitioners alleging extra-judicial killings.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a writ petition filed by a man seeking an SIT probe, preferably by an agency outside the state, into the alleged fake encounter of his father, who was purported to be a high-ranking Maoist. The court's detailed order underscores the delicate balance between upholding human rights and the practical realities of military-style operations in Naxal-affected regions.

The bench firmly stated, "Anti-naxal operations, being part of regular counter-insurgency measures undertaken by the State or Central Security forces, cannot be subjected to investigation by the SIT... unless exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention."

The ruling provides a robust defense of the existing command structure, arguing that judicial intervention through SITs in routine field operations could disrupt established legal and administrative frameworks. "Directing investigation by SIT into such regular field operations would not only undermine the federal structure of policing powers but also set a precedent inconsistent with established legal and administrative principles," the court observed.

The Petitioner's Plea and the Court's Rebuttal

The case, RAJA CHANDRA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (WPCR 521/2025) , was brought by the son of a man killed in an operation by security personnel. The petitioner, represented by counsel Mr. Gonsalves, alleged that his father was taken into custody, tortured, and executed in a "cold blooded manner," with the encounter being a fabricated cover story. The primary evidence presented to support this claim was the presence of "three puncture wounds" on the deceased's body, which the petitioner and his mother believed were inflicted post-arrest.

However, the High Court found these allegations to be unsubstantiated and based on "mere assumption." The judgment systematically dismantled the petitioner's arguments, pointing to a lack of credible material to support the claim of a fake encounter. The court noted that the petitioner's mother was not an expert qualified to determine the cause of the injuries and that such claims amounted to "a self serving statement" without corroborating evidence.

The court gave significant weight to the State's counter-narrative, which detailed the deceased's extensive criminal history. It was undisputed that the man had left his family in 2007, was a known Naxalite, and had 29 cases registered against him in Chhattisgarh, two in Telangana, and six in Maharashtra. The State's reply, which the petitioner failed to rebut, also highlighted key forensic findings: * Recovery of arms and ammunition from the encounter site. * The presence of nitrate in the deceased's palm, indicating he had recently fired a weapon.

"Merely on the basis of certain injuries on the body of the deceased, the encounter which took place between the Police and the Maoist cannot be held to be an act of extra judicial killing," the court concluded.

Interpreting PUCL Guidelines and the Nature of Conflict

A crucial aspect of the judgment is its interpretation of the landmark Supreme Court guidelines established in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra . While these guidelines mandate a stringent 16-point procedure for investigating encounter deaths to ensure accountability, the Chhattisgarh High Court clarified their scope.

The bench stated that the PUCL guidelines are "procedural safeguards," and "any defect / lapses / non-compliance alone does not automatically imply that the encounter was fake." This interpretation suggests that minor procedural deviations will not, in themselves, be sufficient to invalidate an official account of an encounter, especially when other evidence supports it.

The court also drew a sharp distinction between urban policing and counter-insurgency warfare, describing encounters in Naxal-dominated zones as "military-style anti-insurgency operations." In this context, the court dismissed the petitioner's argument that the absence of police casualties was indicative of a staged encounter.

"It is not uncommon for few deaths or one-sided casualties due to surprise or superior tactical position. Therefore, the absence of police casualties cannot by itself imply falsity," the order reads. This judicial observation provides significant leeway to security forces operating in asymmetrical conflict scenarios.

The "Puncture Wounds" and the Harsh Reality of the Terrain

Addressing the petitioner's central claim regarding puncture wounds, the court offered a detailed alternative explanation, moving from legal analysis to a description of the physical environment in which these operations occur.

"Forests are the safe haven for the naxalites/maoists and most of the anti-naxal operation takes place in dense forest where the terrain is very harsh," the court noted. It listed numerous ways an individual, whether a security personnel or a Naxalite, could sustain injuries like bruises, abrasions, sprains, fractures, and puncture wounds from environmental hazards.

The court reasoned that without substantiated proof, speculating on the cause of the wounds was insufficient to warrant an SIT probe. "What was the real cause of the punctured wound sustained by the deceased is difficult to ascertain and mere speculations can be made with respect to it but when an allegation of torture by the security personnel is made by the petitioner, the same needs to be substantiated, which is totally missing in this case."

Legal and Operational Implications

This judgment is poised to have significant ramifications for human rights litigation concerning encounters in conflict zones across India.

1. Elevated Burden of Proof: Petitioners alleging extra-judicial killings will now face a higher threshold. Courts may require more than circumstantial evidence or procedural lapses to intervene, demanding concrete proof to counter the State's version of events.

2. Reinforcement of State Autonomy: The ruling strongly supports the operational independence of police and paramilitary forces in counter-insurgency. By framing these as "military-style operations," the court signals a degree of judicial deference to the expertise and authority of security agencies.

3. Impact on Future Litigation: State governments are likely to cite this judgment as a precedent to resist demands for independent investigations into security operations. Legal practitioners will need to develop more robust evidentiary strategies to meet the standard of "exceptional circumstances" or "credible allegations of excesses" required to secure an SIT probe.

The case had previously reached the Supreme Court, which on September 26 had directed that the body of the deceased be preserved until the High Court decided the matter. With this dismissal, the legal challenge, for now, has concluded, solidifying the state's position and clarifying the judiciary's cautious approach to scrutinizing anti-insurgency warfare.