Supreme Court Entrusts Assam Human Rights Commission To Probe Alleged Fake Encounters In State

The Bench Of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. K. Singh was pronouncing its verdict on a plea highlighting the alleged failure of state authorities to follow due process in encounter killings.

The Court framed the core issue before it as whether the allegations placed on record establish a prima facie violation of the PUCL guidelines, and if so, what remedial steps are required.

These guidelines, including mandatory registration of FIRs, magisterial inquiries, and intimation to the next of kin, are aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability in cases of police encounters.

Reiterating the primacy of the rule of law, the bench observed, “These safeguards reaffirm the fundamental principle that no individual or institution is above the law. They are crucial in preventing misuse of state power and ensuring justice to victims.”

Recognizing the petitioner’s locus standi, the Court appreciated the role played in bringing the issue to judicial notice. The Court noted that in cases of alleged abuse of state machinery, it is not uncommon for individuals or concerned citizens to approach the judiciary.

However, the Bench cautioned that: “A mere compilation of incidents, unaccompanied by substantive evidence, does not justify blanket directions. It is equally plausible that, upon an impartial investigation, certain encounters may be found to be lawful. Therefore, a careful constitutional balance must be struck between ensuring accountability and preserving the integrity of institutions.”

Emphasizing the need for structural reforms, the Court held that it is incumbent upon it to evolve a mechanism for the systematic reporting and scrutiny of encounter cases.

Upon a preliminary examination, the Court noted that many of the allegations submitted by the petitioner may be factually incorrect or exaggerated. While a few instances could potentially warrant deeper scrutiny, the Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish widespread or systemic violations of the PUCL guidelines.

The Court clarified, “These observations should not be construed as casting any aspersions on the conduct of the State authorities. However, objective evaluation of such sensitive issues must necessarily be undertaken by a neutral and independent institution.”

The Court then turned to the Assam Human Rights Commission and emphasized its pivotal role as a guardian of civil liberties. Acknowledging the new leadership at the AHRC, the Bench expressed confidence that the Commission would rise to the task with impartiality and diligence.

Accordingly, the Court directed, “The Assam Human Rights Commission shall undertake a comprehensive, independent and expeditious inquiry into the allegations raised. The process must ensure that victims and their families are given a fair opportunity to present their grievances. A public notice should be issued by the Commission inviting all aggrieved persons to come forward, and utmost confidentiality must be maintained in respect of all complainants.”