Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 922
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2867 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7929 of 2023]
Decided On : 28-05-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Ria Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Devajit Saikia, A.G (Assam) Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam,, Adv. Mr. Anshul Malik, Adv. Mr. Shruti Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Ms. Anasuya Choudhury, AOR
The court emphasized the necessity of independent investigations into police encounters to uphold constitutional rights and ensure adherence to procedural safeguards.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Public Interest Litigation - Allegations of fake encounters in Assam - High Court dismissed PIL for being premature and vague - Appellant contended lack of inquiry and adherence to guidelines in PUCL case - Court emphasized the need for independent investigation and adherence to procedural safeguards. (Paras 3, 10, 11, 12, 55)
(B) Human Rights - Role of Human Rights Commissions - Importance of independent inquiry into alleged human rights violations - Court directed AHRC to reinstate inquiry into police encounters and ensure victims' participation. (Paras 40, 48, 55)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant alleged 80 fake encounters in Assam, resulting in 28 deaths and 48 injuries, and claimed police justified actions as self-defense. Complaints were made to NHRC and AHRC, leading to a PIL for inquiry. (Paras 5.1, 5.2)
Findings of Court:
The High Court's dismissal was set aside, and the AHRC was directed to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of police encounters, ensuring victims' rights and confidentiality. (Paras 55)
Issues: Whether the allegations establish a violation of PUCL guidelines and what remedial measures are necessary. (Paras 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the procedural safeguards mandated by PUCL must be adhered to, and an independent inquiry is essential to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights. (Paras 12, 26, 38)
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's judgment set aside.
Key Points: - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning alleged fake encounters in Assam (!) . - The Court emphasized the necessity of independent investigations into police encounters to uphold constitutional rights and ensure adherence to procedural safeguards (!) . - The Appellant alleged 80 fake encounters in Assam between May and December 2021, resulting in 28 deaths and 48 injuries [p_5.1]. - The High Court had dismissed the PIL, finding it premature and vague, and stating the appellant failed to point out procedural infirmities in the inquiries (!) . - The Court reiterated the mandatory guidelines laid down in the PUCL case for investigating encounter killings, including FIR registration, independent investigation, and magisterial inquiry (!) (!) . - The Court found that while FIRs were registered in most cases, the uniform adherence to all PUCL guidelines, particularly regarding independent investigation and timely forensic analysis, was inconclusive and warranted further scrutiny (!) (!) . - The Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to reinstate and conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of police encounters (!) (!) . - The AHRC was directed to issue a public notice inviting aggrieved individuals and their families to come forward, ensuring confidentiality and providing access to legal aid (!) (!) (!) . - The State of Assam was directed to extend full cooperation to the AHRC, providing logistical, financial, and administrative support (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside (!) .
What are the remedial measures necessary when allegations of fake encounters are made?
What is the role of Human Rights Commissions in investigating alleged human rights violations?
How to ensure adherence to procedural safeguards in police encounter investigations?
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in the State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which has been called into question on various counts. At the heart of these proceedings lie concerns that straddle the delicate boundary between the imperatives of law enforcement and the inviolable guarantees of life and personal liberty enshrined in our Constitution.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.01.2023 (Impugned Judgment), whereby the High Court of Gauhati (High Court) dismissed PIL No. 86/2021, inter alia seeking: (i) records of all alleged fake encounters in the State of Assam, (ii) registration of FIR against the erring police officials and (iii) independent investigation against such officials in compliance with the guidelines laid down by this Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 635. The petition was dismissed by the High Court, holding that the PIL was premature and the documents placed on record only made out vague assertions. Nevertheless, the High Court directed that the Appellant shall be provided all legally permissible documents in connection with all such cases, if so applied.
4. The Appellant is before us asserting that no meaningful or effective inquiry has been undertaken in respect of these cases and the guidelines laid down in PUCL (supra) has been flouted blatantly.
(A) FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5. Before adverting to the issues and contentions raised by the parties, we deem it appropriate to narrate the factual background leading to the instant appeal briefly.
5.1. The Appellant in the Writ Petition filed before the High Court alleged that as many as 80 fake encounters took place in the State of Assam between May, 2021 and December, 2021. According to him, 28 persons were killed and 48 were left injured, during these encounters. It was further alleged that police authorities have justified these actions on the basis that escape attempts from the accused persons prompted them to open fire in purported self-defence, resulting in death or injury.
5.2. Alarmed by the growing incidence of police encounters, the Appellant firstly addressed a complaint on 10.07.2021 to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Respondent No. 4 herein. The Appellant beseeched the NHRC about the multiple incidents of police encounters and requested to take cognizance of the matter. Shortly thereafter, on 12.07.2021, the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Respondent No. 5 herein, also sent a suo-moto notice to the Government of Assam and sought a report. It appears from the records that AHRC had already taken notice of the issue pertaining to increasing incidents of encounters on 07.07.2021, i.e. prior to the complaint addressed by the Appellant to the NHRC.
5.3. The NHRC on 29.11.2021, transferred the Appellant’s complaint to the AHRC on the premise that the latter had already taken note of the issue. Not long after, on 20.12.2021, the Appellant filed the aforestated PIL Petition before the High Court, raising the issue of the alleged fake encounters. It may be apposite to add here that during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, the full bench of the AHRC on 12.01.2022, disposed of the matter before it on the ground that the subject matter was pending adjudication before the High Court and Regulation 7(XII) of the AHRC (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 do not permit entertaining of complaints that are sub-judice before any other Court/Tribunal.
5.4. The Appellant moved an application in the PIL proceedings seeking copies of the FIRs registered pursuant to these police encounters. The High Court granted him liberty to apply to the Prosecuting Inspectors of each district in the State of Assam for accessing the same. He consequently applied to the concerned authorities. The Appellant appears to have maintained that there were 101 known incidents at that point o
