SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 616

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Himanshu Kumar & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. – Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 103 of 2009
Decided on : 14-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Colin Gonsalves, Sneha Mukherjee, Advocate, Satya Mitra, Advocates
for the Respondent:Tushar Mehta, Neela Gokhale, Rajat Nair, Arvind Kumar Sharma, B. V. Balaram Das, S. C. Verma, Sumeer Sodhi, Abhishek Lalwani, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advocates

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Writ Petition regarding alleged massacre on 17th September 2009 and 1st October 2009 involving police and paramilitary forces in Chhattisgarh - Relief sought included mandamus for CBI investigation and compensation to victims' families - Allegations of police misconduct were denied; claims of terror by naxalites emphasized - The State defended its position citing extensive investigations conducted - No significant evidence found against police, claims dismissed as false. (Paras: 1-2, 25-26)

(B) Jurisdiction of Court regarding CBI inquiries - Safe-guarding judicial integrity, extraordinary powers should not be exercised lightly - Mere allegations against police do not warrant transfers of investigations. (Paras: 44-54)

(C)

Findings of Court:
Claims of massacre not substantiated—no actions by police beyond lawful engagement; claims of intimidation and extrajudicial killings disbelieved. (Paras: 56-66)

(D)

Result: Writ petition dismissed with a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 against petitioner. (Paras: 66-68)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the scope and criteria for directing a CBI investigation in a case involving alleged mass atrocities by security forces?

Question 2?

What are the conditions under which Section 340 CrPC proceedings for perjury and false evidence can be initiated against petitioners?

Question 3?

What is the standard for evaluating whether allegations against state agencies justify transfer of investigations to a central agency?


Table of Content
1. allegations of massacre by state forces. (Para 1 , 2)
2. request for investigation and compensation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. details of victims and incidents. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10)
4. state's defense against allegations. (Para 20 , 32 , 33)
5. court's decision on investigation. (Para 44 , 50 , 66)

JUDGMENT

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India relates to the alleged massacre that took place on 17th September 2009 and 1st October 2009 respectively in the villages of Gachhanpalli, Gompad and Belpocha respectively situated in the district of Dantewada, State of Chhattisgarh.

2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers (SPOs), the activists of Salwa Judum (group of vigilantes sponsored by the Chhattisgarh Government) and the Paramilitary Forces consisting of the CRPF and the CoBRA Battalions are responsible for the alleged brutal massacre of the tribals in the respective villages referred to above.

3. In the aforesaid context, the writ petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

    “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to have the CBI take over the investigation and prosecution with respect to the complaints made by the petitioners and others with respect to the massacres that took place on 17.9.2009 and 1.10.2009 as set out in this petition;

    (b) Pass an order directing the payment of compensation to the victims and their families for the extra judicial executions, for the looting of their properties, for the burning of their houses and other losses suffered by the victims on account of the unlawful activities of the respondents and their agents;

    (c) Pass any such further order or orders, as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances stated herein above.”

4. By way of the Criminal M.P. No. 3173 of 2010, further reliefs have been prayed for as under :

    “(a) Order directing the State of Chhattisgarh to constitute and notify a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Shri Sankar Sen (IPS) Dr.K.S.Subramanian, IPS and Mr.Rajneesh Rai, DIG and such other officers as the SIT may deem necessary with additional directions for the proper functioning of the SIT as given by the Supreme Court in the case of NHRC vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 342, 767).

    (b) Order directing the State of Chhattisgarh to produce Petitioners 2-12 at Delhi and hand them over to Dr.Mohini Giri, Chairperson, Guild for Services, Shubham, C-25, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi;

    (c) Order permitting the petitioner no.1 and the advocates for the petitioner no.1 along with their interpreters to meet the petitioners 2-12 at the Guild for Services, New Delhi in the presence of Dr.Mohini Giri;

    (d) Order requesting Dr.Mohini Giri, Chairperson, Guild for Services, New Delhi, to interview the petitioners and make a report to this Court.”

5. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be summarised as under :

6. The writ petitioner no.1, namely Himanshu Kumar, claims himself to be running an NGO in the name of Vanvasi Chetna Ashram, Kanwalnar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. He claims to be running an NGO for the welfare and development of the tribals residing in the Bastar region. He also claims to be rendering help to the other tribals of the Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh.

7. The writ petitioners nos. 2 to 13 respectively are the kith and kin of the victims of the alleged massacre.

8. It is the case of the petitioner no.1 that after the two horrifying incidents referred to above, the tribals are in a state of shock. They constantly remain under the fear of being killed by the Special Forces referred to above.

9. It is his case that with a view to help the tribals and seek justice for them, he took up the cause and thought fit to prefer the present writ petition seeking an inv


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top