'Only Issue Is Whether PUCL Guidelines Were Complied' : Supreme Court In Plea Alleging 'Fake' Encounters In Assam

While hearing a case raising the issue of 'fake' encounters in Assam, the Supreme Court yesterday indicated that the only issue to be considered is whether the guidelines laid down by it in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (pertaining to investigation of police encounters) were complied with or not."We are not going to form any opinion on merits. We can't...Only limited issue is compliance of PUCL guidelines, that's all", said Justice Surya Kant.A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a special leave petition filed against a Gauhati High Court order, whereby the petitioner's PIL raising the same issue was dismissed. Reportedly, the High Court was of the view that no separate probe into the alleged incidents was required, as state authorities were conducting investigation in each case.Previously, in the context of Assam, the top Court had called for data regarding enquiry, if any, initiated by the Assam Human Rights Commission into cases where allegations of 'fake' encounter were levelled. It had also stressed on the need for Human Rights Commissions to act pro-actively in civil liberty matters.During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioner) contended that about 171 cases of fake encounters have been filed in Assam in the past few years, and there has been gross non-compliance of the guidelines laid down in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra. Referring to the judgment, he highlighted the following directions:"(3) An independent investigation into the incident/encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police team of another police station under the supervision of a senior officer (at least a level above the head of the police party engaged in the encounter)...(4) A Magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code must invariably be held in all cases of death which occur in the course of police firing and a report thereof must be sent to Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code."It was pointed out that in the PUCL judgment, the guidelines were also made applicable to grievous injury cases in police encounters.Calling the encounters in Assam "a menace", Bhushan alleged that FIRs in many cases were registered against the victims. Further, in terms of the Court's earlier oral observations, he proposed setting up of an investigating committee headed by a retired judge to give a preliminary report and cited specific incidents through affidavits filed by victims of encounters.He also mentioned that on last two dates of hearing, State of Assam was asked to file an affidavit about the current status of the alleged encounters, but that had not been done.On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that some "really shocking things" had not been pointed out to the Court and the PUCL guidelines stood complied to the teeth. Seeking an opportunity to show "who the petitioner is", he further said, "I would show whether they (facts alleged) inspire confidence or something else is being done".BackgroundThe plea is filed by one Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder, an advocate from Assam, raising the issue of encounters by police personnel in the state. The petitioner claims that more than 80 fake encounters took place between Assam police and persons accused in different cases since May 2021 (when Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma took charge). He seeks an enquiry by an independent agency, like the CBI, SIT or a police team from other states.Notice was issued on the petition on July 17 last year, calling for the response of the National Human Rights Commission and Assam Human Rights Commission, besides the Assam government.In April, the Court suggested that the petitioner place on record some additional information. Pursuant to the same, he is stated to have filed the affidavits of victims of Tinsukia encounter case, in which three persons (Deepjyoti Neog, Biswanath Burgohain and Manoj Buragohain) were allegedly injured in police firing.The petitioner states that family members of two victims of the Tinsukia encounter case viz. Biswanath and Manoj had wanted to lodge a missing persons report. But, the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station refused to lodge the complaint unless they mentioned that the victims were going to join the banned militant organization-ULFA. Rather, an FIR was lodged against the victims after the encounter took place.It is also alleged that the officer-in-charge of Police Station Dholla (Assam) appointed himself as an Investigating Officer in the case, even though he was present at the scene of the encounter and it was his pistol that was allegedly snatched by victim-Deepjyoti Neog.When the matter was heard on September 10, the Court expressed that accused persons losing their lives "just like that" is not good for the rule of law. It also conveyed its intention to form a commission and asked the parties to suggest names of retired judges for the purpose.Case Title: ARIF MD YEASIN JWADDER Versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. ...

'Only Issue Is Whether PUCL Guidelines Were Complied' : Supreme Court In Plea Alleging 'Fake' Encounters In Assam

Debby Jain

Tags