The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its order on a plea filed by Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder, an advocate from Assam, challenging the Gauhati High Court’s dismissal of a petition alleging rampant “fake” encounters in Assam and claiming non-compliance by state authorities with Supreme Court guidelines on investigating police encounters, Live Law reported.
The High Court ruled that a separate probe was unnecessary as state authorities were already investigating each case individually.
The petitioner claimed that more than 80 fake encounters had taken place between Assam police and individuals accused in various cases since BJP Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma took office.
In 2014, in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court of India laid down 16 guidelines for investigating deaths resulting from police encounters. According to these guidelines, “An independent investigation into the incident/encounter shall be conducted by the CID or a police team from another police station under the supervision of a senior officer (at least one level above the head of the police party involved in the encounter).”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Assam had seen rampant violations of these guidelines over the past few years. He noted that in many cases, FIRs were registered against the victims, despite the PUCL judgment extending its guidelines to grievous injury cases in police encounters “as far as possible.”
He highlighted that more than 135 encounter cases involving bullet injuries were pending before the High Court, apart from cases involving deaths. He alleged that no independent investigation had been conducted into these allegations.
Bhushan also informed the court that the National Human Rights Commission had forwarded the matter to the Assam Human Rights Commission, but the AHRC refused to intervene, citing the pending High Court proceedings.
Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questioned the motives behind the petition, arguing that the investigation sought by the petitioner would demoralize security personnel who risk their lives to safeguard the nation from terrorism and militancy.
Mehta also pointed to the High Court’s observations in the impugned order, where it noted that the petitioner had made vague, omnibus allegations of non-compliance with PUCL guidelines without furnishing material facts.
In response, Bhushan asked, “Why would an investigation demoralize an honest officer who has done his job honestly?”
On a specific query from the Court, he also sought time to file an affidavit regarding information received through 44 FIRs supplied to the petitioner.
After hearing the counsels, the bench reserved its order, granting liberty to file any relevant information and submissions within a week.
