Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered an investigation into alleged “fake encounter” cases in Assam.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh directed the Assam Human Rights Commission to probe the alleged cases of fake encounter killings by police in Assam.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
A Special Leave Petition was filed by advocate Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder, alleging that the Assam government violated Supreme Court guidelines from the 2014 PUCL case, which established the legal framework for police encounter investigations.
Striking a delicate balance, the Court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations while upholding the need for institutional investigative processes alongside judicial oversight.
Justice Surya Kant, while delivering the judgment, said: “This case involves police encounters in Assam. The application of excessive or illegal force by public officials is unacceptable. We have clarified that simply compiling cases does not warrant judicial intervention, as it carries the risk of protecting the guilty.”
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The bench acknowledged the gravity of the allegations but clarified that it would not delve into the merits of each individual encounter case.
The Supreme Court has clarified that a long list of alleged police encounters, even 117 individual cases, cannot be automatically dismissed as fake without proper examination. The Court emphasized that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot replace essential procedural safeguards and that justice must be individualized.
“Thus we have said that we have acknowledged the role of Petitioner since… The appellant had submitted 117 individual instances. The allegation that it may include fake encounters is serious. The probe to find out genuine cases is important. PIL cannot be a substitute for procedural safeguards. Justice must be individualized.”
The Bench noted that many claims of non-compliance with PUCL guidelines lacked factual backing.
“The court has found that numerous claims alleging non-compliance with PUCL guidelines were factually incorrect. Our preliminary assessment also indicates these allegations lacked merit. Article 21 of the Constitution requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards, which is essential to maintain public trust in the rule of law.”
However, the Court did not dismiss the possibility that some encounters might be questionable and warrant further investigation.
“Some instances may warrant further evaluation…observations should not be seen as casting aspersions on state authorities…an impartial and independent institution required to undertake examination…”
Justice Surya Kant highlighted the crucial role of Human Rights Commissions and acknowledged recent improvements in the leadership of the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
“The Human Rights Commissions at both state and national levels play a vital role in safeguarding rights. We note that the Assam Human Rights Commission is now under the leadership of an eminent legal expert. Accordingly, we direct this inquiry to be handled by the Assam Human Rights Commission. The 2022 decision of the State Human Rights Commission is hereby overturned, and the matter is to be reconsidered by the SHRC.”
He also instructed authorities to handle the matter with sensitivity, ensuring the safety and privacy of affected individuals.
“Protection of such identities important…Commission to approach with sensitivity…it shall be at liberty to initiate further investigation into allegations…State of Assam to cooperate fully and remove any institutional barriers.”
Furthermore, the Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission to issue public notices and guarantee that the voices of affected families are heard.
“The State Human Rights Commission shall issue public notices in both English and local newspapers to inform all concerned parties about these proceedings, ensuring affected families have an opportunity to be heard. The SHRC may additionally appoint independent members to assist in this process. The state government is ordered to provide full forensic support and necessary resources to the Commission, while also eliminating any administrative obstacles that might hinder their investigation.”
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised concerns about the petitioners’ legal representation.
“Only one request I’ll make. Yeah, but the last part yours may reconsider. Let the human rights Commission provide the lawyer mallowd, not this lawyer.”
Justice Surya Kant clarified, “They can engage him, we have said that.” SG Mehta cautioned against potential misuse, stating, “That might encourage blackmailing. I am sorry to use this mylord.” Justice Surya Kant responded firmly, “Have faith in the system Mr Mehta. If any individual wants, they can engage him.”
On February 4, the Supreme Court stated it would not examine the merit of the 171 alleged police encounter cases in Assam. Instead, the focus would be on whether its 2014 guidelines on encounter investigations were properly followed.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued that the Supreme Court’s 2014 guidelines had been “grossly violated.” He presented letters from victims’ families and those injured in the alleged encounters, highlighting significant compliance failures. Bhushan also pointed out that in most cases, First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered against the victims themselves, despite guidelines mandating FIRs against police officers responsible for killings.
Petitioner Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder had challenged a January 2023 order from the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) he filed concerning the alleged fake encounters by Assam Police.
The petitioner sought an independent investigation into 171 alleged fake police encounters that occurred in Assam between May 2021 and August 2022.
Jwadder had previously argued before the high court that over 80 “fake encounters” were conducted by Assam Police between May 2021 and August 2022, resulting in 28 deaths.
His plea highlighted that “many people killed or injured were not dreaded criminals” and called for an independent investigation by the CBI, a Special Investigation Team (SIT), or a police team from another state under the court’s supervision.