The Supreme Court has asked the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to conduct an independent and prompt investigation into allegations of fake police encounters in Assam. This decision came after a petition highlighted rampant incidents of such encounters and the state's non-compliance with PUCL v. State of Maharashtra guidelines, which set procedures for investigating police encounters.
A bench comprising Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh emphasized the crucial role human rights commissions play in protecting civil liberties. The Court stated:
Read also: Supreme Court: No Reduction of 20-Year Sentence for Aggravated Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act
“We entrust enquiry of this matter to Assam HRC for necessary enquiry, independently and expeditiously... It must be ensured that victims and family members are given fair opportunity... confidentiality be ensured.”
The Court referenced the PUCL guidelines, which require FIR registration, a magisterial enquiry, and informing victims’ families. The Court noted:
“They affirm primacy of rule of law. No individual or institution is above rule of law.”
While some cases may need more investigation, the Court found that an overall blanket direction was not justified. The AHRC is to issue a public notice inviting victims or their families to come forward and assured them of privacy protection. The State of Assam was directed to fully cooperate and remove obstacles in the investigation process.
Read also: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer of 21 High Court Judges in Major Reshuffle
Additionally, the Court directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority to provide legal aid to victims if needed. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised concerns that the petitioner offering legal services could lead to misuse. However, Justice Kant responded:
“Let’s have faith in the system. If any individual wants, they can engage him.”
On the issue of locus standi, the Court stated:
“We have examined the locus of petitioner... we deem it appropriate to acknowledge his role in bringing this matter to court... however, a mere compilation does not invite omnibus directions... an impartial and independent institution is required to undertake examination.”
The petitioner, Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder, had filed the plea claiming over 80 fake encounters since May 2021 in Assam. He requested an independent investigation by agencies like the CBI or SIT. The plea challenged a Gauhati High Court decision that dismissed the case, stating state authorities were already investigating.
Read also: Supreme Court Urges P&H Bar Council To Ensure Transparent Bar Elections In Haryana
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued that Assam police encounters violated the PUCL guidelines. He mentioned specific cases, including one from Tinsukia, where victims’ families were allegedly coerced to not file missing complaints and FIRs were filed against victims instead. He suggested forming an independent probe committee headed by a retired judge.
On the other side, Solicitor General Mehta maintained that PUCL guidelines were followed and investigations should focus on the incident, not officers. He argued:
“The idea behind PUCL guidelines is to investigate the incident itself, not assume guilt of police officers.”
The Court reserved its order after considering both sides, emphasizing that victims should not be denied justice, but also cautioning against jumping to conclusions without proper investigation.
The matter was heard in February 2024, where the Court emphasized that the core issue was whether PUCL guidelines were followed. The AHRC was asked to act proactively, and data on past inquiries into alleged fake encounters was requested.
Case Title: ARIF MD YEASIN JWADDER Versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 7929/2023
