-
by sayum
21 December 2025 11:21 PM
“Truth Must Not Be Silenced by Fear—Victims' Voices Cannot Be Denied by Official Narratives”: In a historic ruling Supreme Court of India overturned the Gauhati High Court’s dismissal of a Public Interest Litigation seeking accountability in 171 alleged police encounters in Assam between May 2021 and August 2022. Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the matter raised “grave and disquieting concerns” under Article 21 of the Constitution, and warranted independent scrutiny under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
While not branding the entire state apparatus as complicit, the Court found “partial non-compliance” with mandatory legal safeguards and directed that each alleged encounter must now face an independent, victim-centric inquiry by the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The Court emphasised that the “inviolability of the right to life cannot be sacrificed at the altar of expediency or state justification.”
"A Death Every Week, and No One Was Asking Why"
The case was initiated by Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder, a practicing advocate, who approached the Gauhati High Court in 2021 alleging a series of fake encounters by the Assam Police. The petition claimed that 80 incidents between May and December 2021 alone resulted in 28 deaths and 48 injuries, and that the total number eventually rose to 171 encounter incidents, as admitted by the State in its affidavits.
The petitioner alleged that the State justified the shootings on the ground that accused persons tried to escape, leading to retaliatory firing by the police. However, no independent investigation was undertaken, and in most cases, FIRs were allegedly registered against the deceased or injured individuals themselves.
The High Court had dismissed the PIL on January 27, 2023, calling it “premature” and “based on vague assertions”. This, despite the Assam government itself admitting that 56 persons were killed (including 4 custodial deaths) and 145 were injured between May 2021 and August 2022.
“Justice Must Be Personal, Not Abstract”
The Supreme Court observed that while the PIL was filed by a third party, its maintainability could not be questioned merely because victims or their families were not directly before the Court.
“It is not uncommon in situations involving alleged abuse of power by State actors for the affected individuals to remain silent, either out of fear or lack of resources.” [Para 22]
The Court said that it was not enough for the State to mechanically file compliance affidavits claiming procedural adherence. The issue at hand was not formality but faithful enforcement of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21.
“The mere compilation or aggregation of cases does not, by itself, call for omnibus judicial directions… but each death demands individual justice.” [Para 23]
On the point of procedural safeguards laid down in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra, the Court was unambiguous:
“The use of excessive or unlawful force by public authorities, irrespective of the nature of the offence or the antecedents of the victim, cannot be condoned or legitimised on any pretext.” [Para 16]
Violation of PUCL Guidelines: “The Law Cannot Be Dismissed As A Technicality”
The Court examined the application of the PUCL guidelines, which mandate specific steps in cases of police encounters—including independent investigation, FIR against police where applicable, magisterial inquiry, and forensic analysis.
The petitioner argued that:
FIRs were filed against the victims rather than the police.
Magisterial inquiries were absent or insufficient in many cases.
Ballistic and forensic analysis was either delayed or entirely missing.
No independent investigation by CID or separate police unit was conducted, as mandated by Para 31.3 of the PUCL judgment.
Although the State denied these claims and submitted that FIRs were filed and magisterial inquiries conducted, the Court found that “the record remains inconclusive as to whether this procedural safeguard was uniformly followed in all encounter-related incidents” [Para 34].
“While partial compliance is visible, the absence of a clear and consistent procedural trail in some cases calls for closer administrative scrutiny.” [Para 34]
The Court concluded that even delayed forensic analysis undermines procedural sanctity, and that the State’s own records indicated lapses warranting an independent probe.
Revival of the Assam Human Rights Commission: “Statutory Watchdogs Must Not Be Muzzled”
One of the most consequential findings in the judgment was the Court’s severe disapproval of how the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) had been sidelined after the High Court PIL was filed. Despite AHRC taking suo motu cognizance of the killings, it withdrew proceedings in 2022, citing pending court litigation.
The Supreme Court was categorical in its disapproval:
“Human Rights Commissions, particularly those functioning at the state level, are designed to act as swift, accessible, and credible bodies… Their mandate must not be neutralised by procedural formality.” [Para 46]
Reinstating the AHRC’s authority, the Court directed it to take charge of the inquiry into all 171 alleged encounters. The Court remarked:
“We have every reason to believe that under the stewardship of its current Chairperson, a retired Chief Justice, the AHRC will discharge its duties with diligence, sensitivity, and an abiding commitment to constitutional values.” [Para 48]
“Victims Must Be Seen, Heard, and Protected”
The Supreme Court carved out a model for participatory justice, directing the AHRC to proactively invite victims and families, and ensure confidentiality, protection, and legal support:
“The victims’ voices must be heard not as a matter of courtesy, but as a matter of right.” [Para 25]
The Court ordered the AHRC to:
Issue a public notice in English and vernacular newspapers inviting affected persons.
Ensure confidentiality and implement witness protection-like measures.
Facilitate legal assistance through the Assam State Legal Services Authority (ASLSA).
If necessary, conduct investigations through retired or independent officers unconnected with Assam Police.
The State of Assam must provide full cooperation, including financial and administrative resources.
The appellant, Arif Jwadder, was also permitted to represent families before the AHRC, if they so choose.
“Where There Is Death, There Must Be Due Process”
By reversing the High Court’s dismissal and restoring the AHRC's jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that alleged extra-judicial killings demand judicial sensitivity, institutional independence, and public accountability.
“The obligation of this Court to safeguard constitutional guarantees persists irrespective of the identity or capacity of the litigant.” [Para 38]
“The function of a Constitutional Court in such circumstances is not merely adjudicatory, but protective—to safeguard the rule of law, and to ensure that the promise of justice does not remain illusory for those who are most vulnerable.” [Para 25]
This judgment ensures that encounter deaths will no longer be buried under silence, and that constitutional protections will apply even in the shadow zones of State violence.
Date of Decision: May 28, 2025
