‘Inquire Into Alleged Fake Encounters In State’: SC To Assam Human Rights Commission

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to conduct an independent probe into allegations of fake police encounters in the state.

A bench comprising justices Surya Kant and N K Singh said after minutely scanning the data brought before the court by the petitioner, “prima facie it seems that barring a few cases, it is difficult to infer that there has been a procedural breakdown or the PUCL guidelines were flagrantly violated.”

The apex court stressed the importance of the human rights commissions in protecting vulnerable groups, ensuring accountability, and strengthening institutional mechanisms for enforcing human rights. Against the backdrop of complex sociopolitical dynamics and systemic inequities in a country as vast and diverse as India, the bench said these commissions provide an essential form of accountability, transparency, and remedy lecture against human right violations.

The bench said the records furnished by the state themselves indicate that some instances may warrant further evaluation to ascertain whether the guidelines laid down in PUCL have been meticulously complied with in both letter and spirit. It said, “We entrust this matter to AHRC for necessary enquiry, independently and expeditiously", and that it must be ensured that victims and family members are given a fair opportunity.

The bench directed a commission headed by a retired high court chief justice to issue a public notice inviting claims of the aggrieved, while ensuring confidentiality. It passed these directions while disposing of a plea by petitioner Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder alleging fake encounters by Assam police. The plea sought an independent investigation into over 171 police encounters in Assam between May 2021 and August 2022.

The bench said the allegations that some of these incidents may involve fake encounters are serious and if proven would amount to a grave violation of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. “It is equally possible that upon a fair and impartial investigation and independent investigation, some of these cases may turn out to be necessary and legally justified….”, said the bench.

It made it clear that though a few specific instances might warrant further evaluation, a blanket direction based on a mere compilation of cases would not be justified.

The bench decided to set aside the January 12, 2022 passed by a full bench of the AHRC disposing of the issue and directed that the matter be reinstated on the board of the commission “for necessary inquiry into the allegations independently and expeditiously in accordance with law.” It said it is essential to ensure that the victims of the alleged incidents or their family members should be given a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

The bench said that it has come to its knowledge that the state commission is now headed by an erudite jurist who is a retired chief justice of the high court whose judicial acumen and integrity inspire confidence.

“This court has every reason to believe that under his stewardship, the state human rights commission will decide the duties with diligence, sensitivity, and an abiding commitment to the constitutional values”, said Justice Kant, pronouncing the judgment on behalf of the bench. It directed AHRC to issue a public notice inviting all individuals who claimed to be aggrieved victims of the police encounters and they should furnish relevant information before the commission.

The bench said the state commission is expected to adopt robust measures regarding witness protection protocol to safeguard the privacy and safety of those participating in the process. The Assam government had contended that the apex court’s guidelines for the investigation of police encounters in the 2014 case of PUCL vs. Maharashtra were being "followed to the hilt" and questioned the bonafide of the petitioner.

The apex court observed that the domestic human rights architecture in India is supported by a robust statutory framework that complements the constitutional guarantees enshrined in part three and the directive principle of state policy.

The bench stressed that the role of human rights commission both at the national and state level is paramount in a democratic polity governed by the rule of law. The apex court said though the petitioner had brought a compilation of as many as 171 incidents before it, however mere compilation or aggregation of cases does not by itself, call for omnibus judicial directions.

The court said the absence of individual scrutiny could result in a miscarriage of justice either by shielding the guilty or by stigmatising legitimate action by public servants discharging their duty under challenged circumstances.

In February this year, the apex court had reserved its verdict on the plea alleging fake police encounters in Assam and non-adherence to the 2014 guidelines.

Previously, the top court said it couldn't get into the merit of the alleged 171 police encounters but would only see whether its guidelines on such extra-judicial killings were duly followed. The petitioner moved the apex court against a January 2023 order of the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed a PIL over the encounters by Assam Police.