1. Commission report on six killings in Manipur finding they were not true encounters. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2013 Supreme(SC) 1439
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. 129 Of 2012 With W.P(C) No. 445 of 2012
Decided On : 04-04-2013
Advocates Appeared:
Amicus Curiae : Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, Adv. Ms. Raeesa Vakil, Adv. Mr. Bipin Aspalwar, Adv.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sevtlana C., Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Paras Kuhad, ASG Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
State : Mr.Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv.
NHRC : Ms. Shobha, Adv. Ms. Joyti Rana, Adv.
Amicus Curiae : Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, Adv. Ms. Raeesa Vakil, Adv. Mr. Bipin Aspalwar, Adv.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sevtlana C., Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Paras Kuhad, ASG Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
State : Mr.Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv.
NHRC : Ms. Shobha, Adv. Ms. Joyti Rana, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the necessity of enforcing adherence to judicial and administrative operational guidelines for security forces to prevent illegal extra-judicial "encounter" killings and ensure the legal exercise of the right of private defence.
Headnote:(A) Armed Forces (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 - Operational guidelines and limits - Security Forces and State Police - Compliance with judicial directions and administrative circulars - The Court observed that despite detailed guidelines set by the Court in previous jurisprudence and operational circulars issued by the Army headquarters, the National Human Rights Commission, and State Governments, these operational limits and "Do's and Don'ts" are not followed in actual operations (Paras 13-15).
(B) Encounter killings - Right of private defence - Examination of alleged encounters - Where an inquiry commission finds that deaths were not caused in a true encounter and the right of private defence was exceeded or not applicable, such incidents cannot be justified (Paras 4-11).
Facts of the case:
A Commission examined six cases of deaths attributed to security forces. The Commission concluded that in all six instances, the deaths were not the result of genuine encounters, nor were they justified as an exercise of the right of private defence. In most cases, the deceased had no criminal antecedents or evidence of involvement in unlawful organizations.
Findings of Court:
The Court took on record the findings of the Commission and the report of the Amicus Curiae, acknowledging that while operational guidelines and circulars regarding the limits of security force operations exist, they are unfortunately ignored in practice.
Issues: The central issue is how to ensure that State Police and Security Forces adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Court and the directions issued by administrative and human rights authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: Since prescribed operational limits and judicial directions are not being followed in actual operations, the Court must focus on establishing mechanisms to ensure strict adherence to these guidelines to prevent unjustified killings.
Result: Put up for further directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- administrative law
-
armed forces law
- armed forces special powers act (Para 13)
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Commission's findings based on evidence; guidelines from authorities exist but are not followed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. Court directs distribution of report and adjourns for further hearing on compliance. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. What guidelines apply to security forces operating under AFSPA?
Supreme Court guidelines in Naga People's Movement case, Army HQ circulars, NHRC guidelines, and State Government circulars prescribe operational limits. (Para 13 , 14 )
ORDER :
1. The Commission’s report dated March 30, 2013 was received in Court on April 2, 2013.
2. We wish to put on record our gratitude for the painstaking work done by the Commission within the time as requested by the Court.
3. The Amicus has also submitted a report in regard to the proceedings before the Commission. Let the Amicus’s report be also taken on record.
4. The Commission has found that in all the six cases examined by it, as requested by the Court, the killings of the victims were not in any true encounter with the police or the security forces.
5.The findings of the Commission are as under:- Case 1 - Md. Azad Khan.
The incident in which the deceased Md. Azad Khan was killed was not an encounter nor was he killed in exercise of the right of self-defence.
6. The Commission further found that there was no evidence to conclude that the deceased was an activist of any unlawful organization or was involved in any criminal activities. Case 2 - Khumbongmayum Orsonjit.
The incident in which the deceased Khumbongmayum Orsonjit died is not an encounter nor can the security forces plead that it was in the exercise of their right of private defence.
7. The Commission further found that Khumbongmayum Orsonjit did not have any adverse criminal antecedents. Case 3 - Nameirakpam Gobind Meitei & Nameirakpam Nobo Meitei.
The incident in question is not an encounter but an operation by the security forces wherein death of the victims was caused knowingly.
8. The Commission further found that the two deceased did not have any criminal antecedents. Case 4 - Elangbam Kiranjit Singh.
Even if the case put forward by the complainant cannot be accepted, the case put forth by the security forces cannot also be accepted because they exceeded their right of private defence. Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that the incident, in question, cannot be justified on the ground of self-defence.
9. The Commission further found that there were no adverse antecedents against the deceased. Case 5 - Chongtham Umakanta.
This incident in which Umakanta died has compelled us to come to the conclusion that though the manner in which he was picked up, as stated by the complainant, cannot be accepted. The manner in which he died definitely indicates that this could not have been an encounter. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the case put forth on behalf of the security forces that the incident was an encounter and that Umakanta was killed in an encounter or in self-defence cannot be accepted.
10. The Commission further found that although there were allegations against the deceased, the veracity of those allegations were not established. Case 6 - Akoijam Priyobrata @ Bochou Singh.
11. That the deceased did not die in an encounter. The Commission further found that there is no acceptable material to come to the conclusion that the deceased had any adverse antecedents.
12. Needless to say that the Commission’s findings are based on a careful consideration of the detailed evidences adduced by the complainants and the Security Forces.
13. The Commission has also given its report on the role and functioning of the State Police and Security Forces in Manipur. The Commission has pointed out that this Court in ’Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights vs. Union of India’ (1998) 2 SCC 109, set out detailed guidelines within which the Security Forces should operate under the Armed Forces (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (in short ’AFSPA’). Following the decision of this Court, the Armed Forces Headquarters issued circulars laying down the Do’s and Don’ts for the Security Forces.
14. The National Human Rights Commission has also issued detailed guidelines and the State Government has also issued circulars prescribing operational limits for the State Police and the Security Forces. But, unfortunately, none of these guidelines or Do’s and Don’ts are followed in actual operations.
15. One of the main issues before this Court, therefore, is how
