Supreme Court Slams Assam Over Encounter Killings | Justice Must Not Be Illusory | AHRC To Probe Alleged Police Excesses
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh has set aside the judgment of the Gauhati High Court and directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to independently inquire into 171 cases of alleged police encounters in Assam. The court directed the AHRC to issue public notices, protect the identity of victims and their families, and determine whether further investigation is warranted. The court concluded that "the issues raised in the instant petition merit a fair and impartial inquiry" and entrusted the matter to AHRC, thereby reinstating the inquiry that was earlier disposed of.
The matter arose from a public interest litigation concerning a series of police encounters that occurred in Assam between May 2021 and August 2022. The appellant, a resident of Assam and a practicing advocate, had alleged that 80 fake encounters occurred between May and December 2021, resulting in 28 deaths and 48 injuries. The appellant asserted that these encounters were allegedly staged and not carried out in genuine self-defence, as claimed by police.
The appellant initially submitted a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on July 10, 2021, urging action in light of these incidents. Shortly before this, on July 7, 2021, the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) had suo motu issued a notice to the State Government. Subsequently, the NHRC transferred the matter to AHRC on November 29, 2021, citing AHRC's existing engagement in the matter.
On December 20, 2021, the appellant filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Gauhati High Court. During the pendency of this petition, the AHRC closed its suo motu proceedings on January 12, 2022, citing the pendency of the matter before the High Court and the limitations under Regulation 7(XII) of the AHRC (Procedure) Regulations, 2001.
The appellant also sought copies of FIRs registered in connection with the encounters. The High Court granted liberty to apply to respective Prosecuting Inspectors. He received 41 FIRs from 12 of 30 districts. Meanwhile, the State filed affidavits before the High Court acknowledging 171 encounters during the relevant period, which resulted in 56 deaths and 145 injuries, including four custodial deaths.
The High Court ultimately dismissed the PIL on January 27, 2023, stating that the petition was premature and based on vague assertions. It noted the absence of foundational facts and rejected the plea for a Special Investigation Team or CBI inquiry. However, it directed that legally permissible documents be made available to the appellant.
The appellant, represented by counsel Prashant Bhushan, approached the Supreme Court asserting that guidelines laid down by the Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 635 ("PUCL guidelines") were violated. He contended that FIRs were not registered against the police officers, that investigations were not conducted independently, and that magisterial inquiries and forensic analyses were either missing or flawed.
The appellant argued that the FIRs were registered against the victims rather than the police officers, and were not in line with PUCL guidelines. He stated that investigations were carried out by the same police stations involved in the encounters, contrary to the mandate for independent investigations. He also stated the uniformity in the FIR narratives, suggesting premeditated action rather than spontaneous self-defence.
Citing the PUCL guidelines, the appellant contended that weapons were not subjected to forensic analysis and magisterial inquiries were not conducted in many cases involving grievous injuries.
On the other hand, the State of Assam, represented by the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Advocate General Devajit Saikia, and Additional Advocate General Nalin Kohli, argued that due process was followed. They submitted that separate FIRs were lodged, independent investigations were conducted, and magisterial inquiries were ordered in all cases involving deaths. They stated that forensic reports had been obtained, although some were delayed.
The respondents maintained that PUCL guidelines did not require a CID or different police station to conduct every investigation and that such procedures were followed “as far as possible” in grievous injury cases. It was further contended that charge sheets had been filed in 125 of 171 cases, with forwarding reports submitted in 23 and investigations ongoing in the remaining 23 cases.
The Court noted, "The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in the State of Assam... the authenticity of which has been called into question on various counts."
Regarding the appellant's standing, the Bench recorded, "It is trite law that since the evolution of the PIL jurisdiction... the doctrine of locus standi has been considerably liberalised." However, the Court cautioned that public interest litigation must not substitute procedural safeguards and observed, "Justice must be individualized where the consequences are personal and irreversible."
Acknowledging the appellant's role, the Court remarked, "We deem it appropriate to acknowledge the role played by the Appellant in bringing to the court’s attention a matter that raises grave and disquieting concerns."
On the issue of procedural compliance, the Court observed, "The Appellant has failed to independently place on record any cogent or verifiable material to substantiate the allegations... prima facie it seems that barring a few cases, it is difficult to infer that there has been a procedural breakdown."
Nonetheless, it noted gaps, stating, "The record remains inconclusive as to whether this procedural safeguard was uniformly followed in all encounter-related incidents." The Court further recorded, "Delayed compliance cannot be equated with total omission... the procedural sanctity envisaged by this Court necessitates that such reports be requisitioned and evaluated at the earliest possible stage."
Referring to PUCL guidelines, the Court held, "No individual or institution, including the Police or law enforcement agencies, is above the law." It added, "The use of excessive or unlawful force by public authorities... cannot be condoned or legitimised on any pretext."
Stating the significance of independent institutional mechanisms, the Court stated, "The Human Rights Commissions... serve as independent watchdogs tasked with safeguarding the dignity, liberty, and rights of individuals." It noted that the AHRC had been actively involved but had disposed of the matter due to the High Court's jurisdiction.
"We are pained to observe that, in this matter, the jurisdiction of AHRC was consciously ousted... the Appellant chose to invoke the PIL jurisdiction of the High Court at a subsequent stage, as a result of which the AHRC disposed of the proceedings hastily."
Finding that institutional scrutiny was required, the Court held, "This Court cannot remain indifferent where the rights and dignity of individuals, particularly in the context of alleged extra-judicial actions, are at stake."
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment dated January 27, 2023, and also quashed the AHRC order dated January 12, 2022. The Court directed reinstatement of the matter on the board of the AHRC for independent inquiry into the alleged police encounters.
It ordered that the AHRC issue a public notice inviting all victims and family members to furnish relevant information or evidence. The Court specified that, "The notice shall be published in at least one national English daily and one prominent vernacular newspaper with wide circulation throughout the State of Assam." The publication must include contact details of District and Taluka Legal Services Authorities to facilitate access to free legal aid.
The AHRC was also directed to ensure strict confidentiality of victims and other individuals approaching it. The Court stated, "AHRC is expected to adopt robust measures akin to witness protection protocols to safeguard the privacy, safety and security of those participating in the process."
The Court allowed AHRC to initiate a more detailed investigation, if necessary, using serving or retired officers with no connection to the alleged incidents. It directed, "The choice of personnel and the manner of conducting such an investigation shall remain within the discretion of AHRC."
The State of Assam was instructed to provide full logistical, financial, and administrative support and facilitate access to records and forensic resources. Additionally, the Assam State Legal Services Authority was directed to make legal assistance available and issue instructions to local officers accordingly.
The Court clarified that the appellant may represent victims or their families before AHRC if engaged by them.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR; Ms. Ria Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Mr. Devajit Saikia, A.G (Assam); Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G.; Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR; Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.; Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.; Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.; Mr. Anshul Malik, Adv.; Ms. Shruti Agrawal, Adv.; Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv.; Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv.; Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR; Ms. Anasuya Choudhury, AOR.
Case Title: Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 785
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7929 of 2023
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
[Read/Download order]
