Chhattisgarh High Court Declines SIT Probe into Alleged Maoist Encounter: Intervention in Anti-Naxal Operations Permissible Only in Exceptional Cases to Preserve Federal Structure
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a plea seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team from outside the State to probe the alleged fake encounter of a man claimed to be a Maoist. The Court held that anti-naxal operations are part of regular counter-insurgency measures undertaken by State or Central Security forces and cannot be subjected to SIT investigation except in exceptional cases. Observing that permitting such probes would undermine the federal structure of policing powers and established legal principles, the Bench found no credible proof of custodial killing and declined to order any independent investigation or compensation.
The petitioner, son of a deceased individual alleged to be a senior Maoist functionary, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising officers from outside the State to investigate the alleged fake encounter of his father by security forces in Narayanpur district on 22 September 2025. He also sought exemplary compensation for the alleged killing. The petitioner stated that his father and another person, both described in media reports as Maoist leaders, were killed in what was portrayed as an encounter between Maoists and security personnel. He contended that the encounter appeared fabricated, noting that no security force personnel were injured and that the incident followed shortly after reported internal communications among Maoists suggesting a shift from armed struggle.
The petitioner alleged that his father was taken into custody and tortured before being killed. He claimed that the postmortem was incomplete, that the videography lasted only a few minutes despite a longer examination, and that the procedure did not comply with guidelines issued in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra and related precedents. He further alleged that several injuries on the body, including puncture wounds, indicated deliberate harm and sought preservation of evidence such as the postmortem and ballistic reports.
The State submitted that the encounter was genuine and based on intelligence inputs about Maoist activity. It produced records showing that the police operation was conducted in compliance with National Human Rights Commission guidelines, including communication with the NHRC, magisterial inquiry, videographed postmortem, and forensic examination. The State also provided details of multiple criminal cases registered against the deceased in Chhattisgarh, Telangana, and Maharashtra under the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, Explosives Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, along with ballistic and forensic reports on recovered weapons and materials.
The Court recorded that “it is the mere assumption of the petitioner and his mother that the deceased was subjected to torture by the Police/security personnel and thereafter executed in a cold-blooded manner.” It found no credible material to establish that the deceased had been apprehended alive or that the police fabricated the encounter. The Bench held that the petitioner’s allegations were “self-serving statements which are of no assistance.”
The Court referred extensively to the State’s return, which detailed steps taken in compliance with NHRC guidelines. It noted that “the police authorities as per the NHRC protocol had sent preliminary information to the NHRC, correspondence was made for constituting a medical team for postmortem, and the inquest proceedings were conducted in the presence of an Executive Magistrate.” The Bench observed that the postmortem was conducted by a team of doctors, videographed and photographed, and that the weapons recovered were subjected to forensic and ballistic examination.
The Bench stated that “merely on the basis of certain injuries on the body of the deceased, the encounter which took place between the Police and the Maoist cannot be held to be an act of extra judicial killing.” It further clarified that even in the absence of police casualties, the veracity of an encounter could not be questioned.
The Court stated that “in operations conducted inside dense forests where the terrain is such that a person can sustain various kinds of injuries… from pointed objects like rocks, stones, thorns, bamboos, sharp-edged leaves etc., it is possible that the injuries sustained by the deceased was an outcome of any such incident.” The Bench found no evidence linking the wounds to custodial torture.
Addressing the prayer for SIT investigation, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571, noting that the extraordinary power to transfer an investigation should be exercised “sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations.” The Court found that no such exceptional circumstances existed. It also cited Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India (2020) 14 SCC 12, reiterating that mere displeasure or suspicion over the course of an investigation is insufficient to warrant a transfer.
The Bench elaborated that anti-Naxal operations in forest regions are inherently military-style operations and the “absence of police casualties cannot by itself imply falsity.” It stated that “any defect, lapses, or non-compliance [with procedural requirements] alone does not automatically imply that the encounter was fake.” The Court held that the authorities had complied with all procedural safeguards laid down in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635.
The Bench held: “The petitioner has been provided the videography of the postmortem conducted by the Doctors and as such, in essence, no grievance of the petitioner remains unaddressed. No case has been made out by the petitioner for issuance of any direction either to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising of the officers from outside the State or for payment of any monetary compensation.”
“Directing investigation by SIT into such regular field operations would not only undermine the federal structure of policing powers but also set a precedent inconsistent with established legal and administrative principles.”
“As a result of the above discussion, this petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate (through Video Conferencing) assisted by Mr. Kishore Narayan and Mr. Manik Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General.
Case Title: Raja Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:51257-DB
Case Number: WPCR No. 521 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
