Supreme Court Orders Independent Inquiry into Assam "Fake Encounters".


28 May 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India on May 28, 2025, set aside a Guwahati High Court judgment and directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to conduct an independent and expeditious inquiry into allegations of "fake encounters" in the state. The ruling came in the case of Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam & Others, a criminal appeal arising from a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7929 of 2023.

The appeal, heard by the Honourable Mr. Justice Surya Kant and the Honourable Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, addresses concerns regarding the authenticity of a series of encounters reported in Assam between May 2021 and December 2021, which the appellant alleged were "fake encounters".

 
 

The appellant, Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder, a practicing advocate and resident of Assam, asserted that no meaningful or effective inquiry had been undertaken into these cases and that guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (PUCL) were blatantly flouted. He alleged that 80 fake encounters took place between May and December 2021, resulting in 28 deaths and 48 injuries, with police justifying these actions as self-defense during escape attempts. The appellant further contended that FIRs were registered against the victims rather than the police officials, and investigations were not conducted independently by the CID or a police team from another police station as mandated by PUCL guidelines. He also highlighted the absence of forensic/ballistic analysis in several magisterial inquiries and a lack of inquiry into grievous injury cases.

In response, the State of Assam, represented by Solicitor General of India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Advocate General Mr. Devajit Saikia, and Additional Advocate General Mr. Nalin Kohli, vehemently argued that the High Court rightly dismissed the PIL as vague and unsubstantiated. They maintained 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 between May 2021 and August 2022 (56 deaths, 145 injured), charge sheets had been filed in 125 cases, forwarding reports submitted in 23 cases, and 23 cases were still pending investigation. They also asserted that ballistic and forensic reports were received and considered, albeit sometimes later in the process.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant's role in bringing the matter to light, noting that the assertion of helpless or intimidated victims should not be summarily disregarded. While recognizing the seriousness of the allegations, the Court also cautioned against broad-brush directives without individual scrutiny, emphasizing that some cases might be legally justified upon fair investigation.

Crucially, the Court found that while the appellant's claims of procedural non-compliance were "factually incorrect or incomplete" in several instances and "more or less speculative" without independent corroboration, some records furnished by the State indicated that further evaluation was warranted to ascertain meticulous compliance with PUCL guidelines. The Court emphasized that Article 21, which guarantees the Fundamental Right to Life, requires procedural safeguards to be meaningfully enforced to inspire public confidence in the Rule of Law.

Given the constitutional importance of the procedural mandates and the need for impartiality, the Supreme Court deemed it inappropriate for the State Police to conduct further inquiries due to potential conflicts of interest.
The Court recognized the paramount role of human rights commissions in a democratic polity. Noting that the AHRC is now headed by a retired Chief Justice whose "judicial acumen and integrity inspire confidence," the Supreme Court decided to entrust the inquiry to the AHRC.

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

  • The judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated January 27, 2023, is set aside.
  • The AHRC's order dated January 12, 2022, which disposed of the matter citing sub-judice status before the High Court, is set aside, and the matter is reinstated for independent and expeditious inquiry.
  • The AHRC is to issue a public notice in national English and prominent vernacular newspapers across Assam, inviting victims and their families to furnish information or evidence. The notice must include contact details for Taluka and District Legal Services Authorities for free legal aid.
  • The AHRC must ensure strict confidentiality of the identity of victims and their families, adopting robust measures akin to witness protection protocols.
  • If a more detailed investigation is warranted, the AHRC is at liberty to initiate it using retired or serving police officers of impeccable integrity not connected to the alleged incidents.
  • The State of Assam is directed to extend full cooperation, including logistical, financial, and administrative support, and access to records and forensic resources.
  • The Assam State Legal Services Authority (ASLSA) is directed to provide legal assistance to individuals seeking support before the AHRC.
  • The appellant, as an advocate, is free to represent victims or their families before the AHRC if engaged by them.
This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional values and ensuring accountability in cases of alleged human rights violations, even when the allegations are initially deemed vague or unsubstantiated.


  Section 157., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

  Section 158., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

  Section 176., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

  Section 190., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973