1. Proceedings regarding alleged fake encounters in Manipur; Union seeks adjournment to respond to commission report. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2013 Supreme(SC) 1435
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.
Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families Assn & Anr. - Petitioner
Vs.
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s). 129 Of 2012 With W.P(C) No. 445 of 2012
Decided On : 09-04-2013
Advocates Appeared:
Amicus Curiae : Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, Adv. Ms. Raeesa Vakil, Adv. Ms. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Bipin Aspatwar, Adv.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv. Ms. Jubli, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Sunil Verma, Adv. Mr. Naresh Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Paras Kuhad, ASG Mr. R.Balasubramanian, Adv. Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
State : Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr.Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv.
NHRC : Ms. Shobha, Adv. Ms. Joyti Rana, Adv.
Amicus Curiae : Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, Adv. Ms. Raeesa Vakil, Adv. Ms. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Bipin Aspatwar, Adv.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv. Ms. Jubli, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Sunil Verma, Adv. Mr. Naresh Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Paras Kuhad, ASG Mr. R.Balasubramanian, Adv. Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
State : Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr.Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv.
NHRC : Ms. Shobha, Adv. Ms. Joyti Rana, Adv.
The government must maintain transparency and waive the plea of privilege regarding documents and inquiry reports in cases involving deaths not sanctioned by law to ensure the rule of law is upheld.
Headnote:(A) Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Production of inquiry reports - Fake encounters - State and Union Government's duty to disclose materials - Waiver of privilege - Government's commitment to uphold the rule of law and produce all relevant documents without claiming privilege to ensure transparency in cases of deaths not sanctioned by law. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Adjournment - Reasonableness of request - When a commission report is under consideration by the government, a short adjournment to provide a constructive response is reasonable. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed concerning several deaths attributed to fake encounters by security forces. A report from a court-appointed commission identified specific deaths as having occurred in a manner not sanctioned by law. The petitioners highlighted multiple cases, including those where government-constituted inquiry commissions had been established under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, but the reports had not been made public.
Findings of Court:
The state government agreed to submit reports of the inquiry commissions and confirmed that no material information would be withheld. The union government stated it would not take the plea of privilege regarding any information, material, or document and would produce all relevant materials for the court's perusal.
Issues: Whether the government should produce reports of inquiry commissions and relevant materials without claiming privilege in matters involving deaths not sanctioned by law.
Ratio Decidendi: To ensure the rule of law and transparency in investigations of extra-judicial killings, the government should not withhold material information or invoke the plea of privilege to prevent the court from perusing relevant documents and inquiry reports.
Result: Prayer for adjournment allowed; case to be listed after four weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
- rule of law (Para 3)
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege history of unfulfilled promises; Union and State undertake to cooperate and disclose reports. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Court considers adjournment reasonable given seriousness and ongoing consideration of commission report. (Para 11 )
4. Impleadment allowed; case adjourned for four weeks; parties directed to produce relevant records. (Para 1 , 11 , 13 )
ORDER :
1. Application to implead Ministry of Defence as one of the respondents is allowed.
2. Mr. Paras Kuhad, learned Additional Solicitor General, stated that the report of Justice Hegde Commission is receiving very serious attention at the highest levels in the Army Headquarters, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Defence and by the Union of India.
3. Mr. Kuhad further stated that the Union of India is equally aggrieved by any deaths in Manipur, as anywhere else in India, that might have taken place in a manner not sanctioned by the law. The Union of India is fully committed to uphold the rule of law in Manipur as in any other part of the country. He further submitted that the Union of India needs at least four weeks’ time to make a response to the Commission’s report and the issues arising from it. He also assured the Court that the response of the Union of India will be positive and constructive. He further submitted that the Union of India does not see this case as an adverse litigation.
4. Ms. Shobha, learned counsel appearing for the National Human Rights Commission, has submitted a response from the National Human Rights Commission. Let it be taken on record.
5. Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, the Amicus, submitted that the Court should, without any delay, take up hearing of the case on the basis of the report of the Commission appointed by it and should at least give some directions in regard to the killings of seven persons who are found by the Commission to have been killed in a manner not sanctioned by law.
6. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, did not hide his unhappiness over the request of adjournment made by Mr. Kuhad. Mr. Gonsalves stated that platitudes have been expressed by both the State of Manipur and the Union of India on many occasions in proceedings relating to fake encounters in Manipur before different courts, but promises were made before the courts with no intent to carry them out.
7. He submitted to the Court a note titled ’Interim Submissions Made By The Petitioners’ in which details are given of 33 cases, in which people were killed in Manipur by the Security Forces in fake encounters. The first six cases are those in regard to which the Court asked Justice Hegde Commission to submit its report. Cases at serial Nos. 24 to 32 relate to incidents in which the State Government had itself constituted Commissions of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.
8. Mr. Gonsalves submitted that even the reports of the Inquiry Commissions were not allowed to see the light of the day, though according to his information, the reports in each of those cases indicted the State Government and the Security Forces.
9. At this stage, to a direct query by the Court, Mr. V. Giri, learned senior advocate, appearing for the State of Manipur, submitted that the State Government would certainly submit the reports of the Inquiry Commissions in those cases for the perusal of the Court. He further submitted that the State Government shall not withhold any material information from the Court and shall fully share all information and all records with the Court.
10. Mr. Kuhad, learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that the Union Government shall not take the plea of privilege in case of any information, material or document and shall produce before the Court all relevant materials and documents for its perusal.
11. Having regard to the seriousness of the matter and having regard to the fact that Justice Hegde Commission’s report is under consideration by the Union of India, we think that the prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the Union of India is reasonable. We, therefore, allow the prayer and direct the case to be listed after four weeks.
12. Here, it may be recorded that Mr. Gonsalves stated that at some stage of the proceedings, the issue of sanction for prosecution may arise and submitted that this case may be directed to be listed before a three Judge Bench. The Court will tak
