Back
1997(1) Crimes 190 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy & Suhas, C. Sen, JJ.
People's Union for Civil Liberties - Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 612 of 1992
Decided on 5-2-1997
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966-Article 9(5)-To what extent can the provisions of such international conventions/conventions be read into national laws?
Held: It is not clear whether our Parliament has approved the action of the Government of India ratifying the said 1966 Covenant. Assuming that it has, the question may yet arise whether such approval can be equated to legislation and invests the covenant with the sanctity of a law made by Parliament. As pointed out by this Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994 (3) SCC 1), every action of Parliament cannot be equated to legislation. Legislation is no doubt the main function of the Parliament but it also performs many other functions all of which do not amount to legislation. In our opinion, this aspect requires deeper scrutiny than has been possible in this case. For the present, it would suffice to state that the provisions of the covenant, which elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, can certainly be relied upon by courts as facets of those fundamental rights and hence, enforceable as such. So far as multi-lateral treaties are concerned, the law is, of course, different - and definite. (Para 9)
Result: Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the People's Union for Civil Liberties, seeking a judicial inquiry into alleged extrajudicial killings, action against police officials involved, and compensation for the families of the deceased (!) (!) .
The incident in question pertains to the alleged killing of two individuals in police custody, with reports indicating they were taken away in a truck and shot at a distant location. The court accepted the findings of an inquiry that confirmed these deaths occurred while the individuals were in police custody and not during a genuine encounter (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that activity involving the seizure and killing of individuals outside the legal framework cannot be justified, even in disturbed or conflict-affected areas. It reaffirmed that extrajudicial activities like "administrative liquidation" are not permissible under the law (!) .
The court recognized the importance of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life, and stated that such rights cannot be compromised or bypassed through claims of sovereign immunity or in the name of national security, especially when actions are taken outside the bounds of lawful procedures (!) (!) .
It was held that compensation for violations of fundamental rights is a legitimate remedy, and the state is liable to pay damages for unlawful acts committed by public officials. The award of compensation is distinct from and in addition to other civil remedies and is based on principles of strict liability (!) (!) (!) .
The court discussed the role of international conventions and treaties, noting that unless incorporated into domestic law by legislation, international covenants do not directly create enforceable rights. However, courts can consider these conventions as interpretative guides and may rely on them to develop the common law, provided they are not unilaterally incorporated without legislative backing (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged that ratification of international treaties by the executive alone does not automatically make them part of domestic law. Nevertheless, such ratification can influence judicial interpretation, especially when legislation is ambiguous or silent on a matter (!) (!) .
In terms of remedies, the court affirmed that monetary compensation is an effective means to redress violations of fundamental rights, and the state is liable to pay damages without the defense of sovereign immunity. The compensation aims to provide reparation rather than punishment (!) (!) (!) .
The court directed the government to pay Rs 1,00,000 to each of the families of the deceased and to hand over the compensation within a specified timeframe. The petitioner was also awarded costs for their efforts in pursuing justice (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that extrajudicial killings and illegal activities by state officials violate constitutional rights and are not justified, regardless of the circumstances, and emphasizes the importance of lawful procedures and accountability in state actions (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. -People's Union for Civil Liberties has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction (I) to institute a judicial inquiry into the fake encounter by Imphal police on April 3, 1991 in which two persons of Lunthilian village were killed, (2) to direct appropriate action to be taken against the erring police officials and (3) to award compensation to the members of the families of the deceased. According to the petitioner, there was in truth no encounter but it was a case where certain villagers were caught by the police during the night of April 3, 1991, taken in a truck to a distant place and two of them killed there. It is alleged that three other persons who were also caught and taken away along with two deceased persons were kept in police custody for a number of days and taken to Mizoram. They were released on bail only on July 22, 1991. It is further submitted that Hamar Peoples' Convention is a political party active in Mizoram. It is not an unlawful organization. Even according to the news released by the said organization, it was a case of deliberate killing. Though representations were made to the Chief Minister of Manipur and other officials, no action was taken. Along with the writ petition, affidavit of the persons who were taken into custody along with the deceased, taken in a truck and kept in custody for a number of days, were filed. Affidavits of the wives of the deceased were also filed setting out the miserable condition of their families after the death of their respective husbands.
2. On notice being given, a counter- affidavit was filed by the Joint Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur denying the allegations. The allegation of ‘fake encounter' was denied. It was submitted that there was genuine cross firing between the police and the activists of Hamar Peoples? Convention during which the said two deaths took place. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Churachandpur was relied upon in support of the said averment. It was submitted that Hamar Peoples' Convention was indulging in illegal and terrorist activities and in acts disturbing the public order. Particulars of several F.I.Rs. issued in respect of crimes committed by them under different police stations in that area were set out. The truth and correctness of the supporting affidavits was also -disputed. Along with the counter affidavit, copies of post-mortem reports were filed.
3. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, this Court directed, by its order dated May 30, 1995, that the learned District and Sessions Judge, Churachandpur shall make an inquiry into the alleged incident and submit his report as to what exactly happened on that day Subsequently, that inquiry was entrusted to learned District and Sessions Judge, Manipur (West), who has submitted his report dated April 8, 1996. The learned District and Sessions Judge has concluded that "there was no encounter in the night between 3-4-1991 and 4-4-1991 at Nungthulien village. The two deceased, namely, Lalbeiklien and Saikaplien were shot dead by the police while in custody on 4-4-1991". The State of Manipur has filed its objections to the report along with certain documents which according to them purport to disprove the correctness of finding recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. We are not satisfied that there are any reasons for not accepting the report of the learned District and Sessions Judge which means that the said two deceased persons were taken into custody on the night of April 3, 1991, taken in a truck to a long distance away and shot there. The question is what are the reliefs that should be granted in this writ petition?
5. It is submitted by Ms.S. Janani, learned counsel for the State of Manipur, that Manipur is a disturbed area, that there are several terrorist groups operat
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
