IMPORTANT POINTS
Continuing mandamus ensures that Investigating Officer or Investigating Team does not deviate from natural course of investigations.
No one, including an observation by Supreme Court, can interfere in the course of judicial proceedings.
Allegation that observations of the Court had demoralizing effect on forces is only suggestive of a weakness in the forces.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Continuing mandamus and monitoring of investigation by Court – Integrity or fairness of investigations not in question – No allegation of any bias of any sort or any apprehension that justice will not be done or that anybody would be treated unfairly made during hearing of the case and even after rendering the decision on substantive legal and factual issues – Controversy raised only at the continuing mandamus stage – On basis of certain observations allegedly made by Court – Continuing mandamus meant only to ensure no interference during the course of investigations from anybody – Investigating Officer or the Investigating Team should be given a free hand to make investigations meaningful, fair and with integrity – Continuing mandamus ensures that Investigating Officer or Investigating Team does not deviate from natural course of investigations – Held, apprehension that observations said to have been made by the Court on 30th July, 2018 would influence the SIT is erroneous. (Para 21, 22, 23, 23, 25)
       (2016) 14 SCC 536; (2017) 8 SCC 417; (2016) 14 SCC 578; (1998) 2 SCC 109; (2014) 9 SCC 1; (2016) 3 SCC 370; (2009) 6 SCC 260; (2016) 5 SCC 808; (2009) 8 SCC 106 – Distinguished
       (b) Administration of justice – Continuing mandamus and monitoring of investigation by Court – With the beginning of judicial process concerned court comes in complete charge and full control of the proceedings – No one can interfere in the course of judicial proceedings – Apprehension that observations of the Court would interfere in the investigations by the SIT – Held, not real or justified. (Para 26, 27)
       © Administration of justice – Allegation that observations of the Court had demoralizing effect on forces – Only suggestive of a weakness in the forces – Forces are disciplined and strong enough to be influenced by observations. (Para 30)
       Facts of the case:
       These writ petitions are a fall-out of the decision rendered by this Bench in Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536 and subsequent orders passed therein by way of a continuing mandamus. The prayer in the writ petitions is for an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing certain oral observations said to have been made by the Bench which, according to the petitioners, violate their rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Pending a decision in the writ petitions, it is prayed that the present Judges should not proceed with the continuing mandamus in the case.
       Finding of the Court:
       Controversy is misconceived if nit unfounded.
       Result: Applications dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. These writ petitions have been filed by some police personnel of Manipur Police under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We havebeen given to understand that these petitions have the support of a few hundred officers from the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and Manipur Police. These petitions are a fall-out of the decision rendered by us in Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536 and subsequent orders passed therein by way of a continuing mandamus. The prayer in the writ petitions is for an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing certain oral observations said to have been made by us which, according to the petitioners, violate their rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Pending a decision in the writ petitions, it is prayed that we should not proceed with the continuing mandamus in the case.

2. Interlocutory applications have also been moved in these writ petitions specifically for a direction that we should recuse from hearing these writ petitions which should be placed for consideration before another Bench of this Court.

3. Submissions were made before us in the interlocutory applications for recusal but we find no merit in these applications and therefore dismiss them.

The background

4. On 8th July, 2016 we delivered judgement in Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association. v. Union of India. We noted the allegations made in the writ petition in the following words:

“The allegations made in the writ petition concern what are described as fake encounters or extra-judicial executions said to have been carried out by Manipur Police and the Armed Forces of the Union, including the Army. According to the police and security forces, the encounters are genuine and the victims were militants or terrorists or insurgents killed in counter-insurgency or anti-terrorist operations. Whether the allegations are completely or partially true or are entirely rubbish and whether the encounter is genuine or not is yet to be determined, but in any case there is a need to know the truth.

The right to know the truth has gained increasing importance over the years. This right was articulated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Sixty-second Session of the Human Rights Commission. In a study on the right to the truth, it was stated in Para 8 that though the right had its origins in enforced disappearances, it has gradually extended to include extra-judicial executions. This paragraph reads as follows:

“With the emergence of the practice of enforced disappearances in the 1970s, the concept of the right to the truth became the object of increasing attention from international and regional human rights bodies and special procedures mandate-holders. In particular, the ad hoc working group on human rights in Chile, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) developed an important doctrine on this right with regard to the crime of enforced disappearances. These mechanisms initially based the legal source for this right upon Articles 32 and 33 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12-8-1949. Commentators have taken the same approach. However, although this right was initially referred to solely within the context of enforced disappearances, it has been gradually extended to other serious human rights violations, such as extrajudicial executions and torture. The Human Rights Committee has urged a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to guarantee that the victims of human rights violations know the truth withrespect to the acts committed and know who the perpetrators of such acts were.” [ Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Study on the right to the truth. Rep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 1127

Cases Referred (9)

Login now and unlock premium legal research