Supreme Court Directs AHRC to Probe Alleged Fake Encounters in Assam.


28 May 2025 Public Interest Litigation >> Constitution & Law Procedure   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Investigation >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India, on May 28, 2025, overturned a Gauhati High Court judgment and directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to conduct an independent inquiry into allegations of 171 "fake encounters" in Assam between May 2021 and August 2022. The ruling by Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh came in a criminal appeal filed by Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder, an advocate and resident of Assam, who initially brought the matter to the High Court's attention.

The appellant alleged that 28 persons were killed and 48 injured in 80 alleged fake encounters between May and December 2021 alone, with police justifying the actions as self-defense during escape attempts. The scope of the petition later expanded to include 171 alleged police encounters, resulting in 56 deaths (including 4 custodial deaths) and 145 injuries, between May 2021 and August 2022.

 
 

Jwadder contended that the High Court erred in dismissing his PIL, arguing that the guidelines laid down in People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (PUCL) were not adhered to in any of these incidents. Specifically, he submitted that FIRs were registered against the victims and not the police officials, investigations were not independent, and magisterial inquiries often lacked references to ballistic or forensic analyses. He also highlighted that the status of investigation for all 171 cases was not clearly indicated, and charge sheets filed in some cases were feared to be against the victims.

The State of Assam, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Advocate General Devajit Saikia, and Additional Advocate General Nalin Kohli, vehemently refuted these claims. They asserted that PUCL guidelines were diligently observed in all death cases, with separate FIRs lodged, independent investigations conducted, and magisterial inquiries ordered. The State's counter-affidavit indicated that out of 171 cases, charge sheets were filed in 125, forwarding reports in 23, and 23 cases were still under investigation.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the appellant's role in raising grave concerns, noted that "the mere compilation or aggregation of cases does not, by itself, call for omnibus judicial directions". However, it emphasized the constitutional obligation to safeguard individual rights and the rule of law, especially in cases of alleged extra-judicial actions.

The Court's analysis revealed that while some of the appellant's allegations of procedural non-compliance were "factually incorrect or incomplete", and FIRs were registered in all cases brought to its notice, the record remained inconclusive on uniform adherence to magisterial inquiries in all encounter-related incidents. It also observed that while forensic and ballistic reports were eventually considered, their acquisition often occurred belatedly.

Recognizing that the "issue raised in the instant appeal requires fact finding inquiry", and that investigation by the State Police would be inappropriate due to potential conflict of interest, the Supreme Court deemed it fit to entrust the inquiry to the AHRC. The Court specifically highlighted that the AHRC is now headed by a retired Chief Justice of the High Court, whose "judicial acumen and integrity inspire confidence".

The Court set aside the AHRC's earlier order from January 12, 2022, which had disposed of the matter on the premise that it was sub-judice before the High Court.

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
  • The AHRC is to reinstate the matter and conduct an independent and expeditious inquiry into the allegations.
  • The AHRC must issue a public notice in at least one national English daily and one prominent vernacular newspaper in Assam, inviting victims and their families to provide information or evidence. The notice will also include contact details for Taluka and District Legal Services Authorities to facilitate free legal aid.
  • The AHRC must ensure strict confidentiality of the identities of victims and their families, adopting measures akin to witness protection protocols.
  • If a more detailed investigation is warranted, the AHRC is at liberty to initiate one, potentially engaging retired or serving police officers of impeccable integrity not connected to the alleged incidents.
  • The State of Assam is directed to provide full cooperation, including logistical, financial, and administrative support, and access to records and forensic resources.
  • The Assam State Legal Services Authority (ASLSA) is to make legal assistance available to individuals seeking support in approaching the AHRC, with specific instructions to be issued to district and taluk level officers.
  • The appellant, Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder, is free to represent victims or their families before the AHRC if engaged by them.
The appeal was allowed in these terms, with pending interlocutory applications also disposed of.


Section 157., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 190., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973