The Assam government informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it has adhered strictly to the 2014 guidelines governing the investigation of police encounters, emphasizing that undue scrutiny of security forces could have a detrimental impact on their morale.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh subsequently reserved its judgment on a petition seeking an independent inquiry into 171 alleged extrajudicial killings by Assam police between May 2021 and August 2022.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Assam government, asserted that the procedural framework established in the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in PUCL v. Maharashtra had been meticulously followed.
He stated, “All necessary protocols have been observed, and requisite safeguards implemented. If security personnel are found culpable, they must face legal consequences; however, if they are not guilty, they deserve the state’s protection. Excessive targeting of security forces, given the challenging conditions under which they operate, may have a demoralizing effect.” Mehta further raised concerns regarding the legitimacy of the petitioner, Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder, and the motivations behind his plea.
“The petitioner presumes, from his location in Delhi, that all encounters are staged, despite the absence of any registered FIRs in these cases. We do not know for whom he seeks investigative details,” Mehta contended.
Conversely, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, countered that impartial officers should have no reason to fear an independent investigation.
He referenced witness statements from individuals injured in encounters and testimonies from victims’ families, which, he argued, substantiate claims that these incidents were fabricated.
“The petitioner merely requests an inquiry by an independent committee chaired by a retired judge. There is a pressing need to scrutinize the developments in Assam, and FIRs must be registered against those responsible for extrajudicial killings,” Bhushan asserted.
On February 4, the Supreme Court clarified that it would not evaluate the merits of the 171 alleged encounters but would solely examine whether its prescribed protocols for investigating extrajudicial killings had been observed.
Bhushan cited correspondence from victims’ families and survivors to demonstrate what he described as egregious violations of the 2014 guidelines.
He further highlighted that the majority of FIRs related to these cases had been lodged against the victims themselves, contradicting judicial directives that mandate criminal proceedings against responsible officers.
The petitioner seeks to overturn a January 2023 ruling by the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning Assam Police’s conduct in these encounters.
The high court’s decision referenced an affidavit submitted by the Assam government, which reported that between May 2021 and August 2022, 171 such incidents had occurred, resulting in 56 deaths—including four custodial fatalities—and 145 injuries.
On October 22, 2023, the Supreme Court characterized the matter as “very serious” and requested comprehensive details on the investigations conducted in these cases. In July 2023, it sought responses from the Assam government and other relevant parties regarding the petition challenging the high court’s verdict.
The petitioner had previously argued before the high court that Assam Police had orchestrated over 80 “fake encounters” from May 2021 until the filing of the writ petition, leading to 28 fatalities.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
