2025 INSC 785

Page 1 of 36

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. __________ OF 2025

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7929 OF 2023)

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder … Appellant

Versus

State of Assam and Ors. … Respondents

JUDGMENT

SURYA KANT, J.

Leave granted.

2. The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in

the State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which

has been called into question on various counts. At the heart of

these proceedings lie concerns that straddle the delicate boundary

between the imperatives of law enforcement and the inviolable

guarantees of life and personal liberty enshrined in our

Constitution.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.01.2023

(Impugned Judgment ), whereby the High Court of Gauhati (High

Court) dismissed PIL No. 86/2021, inter alia seeking: (i) records of

Page 2 of 36

all alleged fake encounters in the State of Assam, (ii) registration of

FIR against the erring police officials and (iii) independent

investigation against such officials in compliance with the

guidelines laid down by this Court in People’s Union for Civil

Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors .

1 The petition

was dismissed by the High Court, holding that the PIL was

premature and the documents placed on record only made out

vague assertions. Nevertheless, the High Court directed that the

Appellant shall be provided all legally permissible documents in

connection with all such cases, if so applied.

4. The Appellant is before us asserting that no meaningful or effective

inquiry has been undertaken in respect of these cases and the

guidelines laid down in PUCL (supra) has been flouted blatantly.

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Before adverting to the issues and contentions raised by the

parties, we deem it appropriate to narrate the factual background

leading to the instant appeal briefly.

5.1. The Appellant in the Writ Petition filed before the High Court alleged

that as many as 80 fake encounters took place in the State of

Assam between May, 2021 and December, 2021. According to him,

1

People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2014) 10 SCC 635.

Page 3 of 36

28 persons were killed and 48 were left injured, during these

encounters. It was further alleged that police authorities have

justified these actions on the basis that escape attempts from the

accused persons prompted them to open fire in purported self-

defence, resulting in death or injury.

5.2. Alarmed by the growing incidence of police encounters, the

Appellant firstly addressed a complaint on 10.07.2021 to the

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Respondent No. 4

herein. The Appellant beseeched the NHRC about the multiple

incidents of police encounters and requested to take cognizance of

the matter. Shortly thereafter, on 12.07.2021, the Assam Human

Rights Commission (AHRC), Respondent No. 5 herein, also sent a

suo-moto notice to the Government of Assam and sought a report.

It appears from the records that AHRC had already taken notice of

the issue pertaining to increasing incidents of encounters on

07.07.2021, i.e., prior to the complaint addressed by the Appellant

to the NHRC.

5.3. The NHRC on 29.11.2021, transferred the Appellant’s complaint to

the AHRC on the premise that the latter had already taken note of

the issue. Not long after, on 20.12.2021, the Appellant filed the

aforestated PIL Petition before the High Court, raising the issue of

the alleged fake encounters. It may be apposite to add here that

Page 4 of 36

during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, the

full bench of the AHRC on 12.01.2022, disposed of the matter

before it on the ground that the subject matter was pending

adjudication before the High Court and Regulation 7(XII) of the

AHRC (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 do not permit entertaining

of complaints that are sub-judice before any other Court/Tribunal.

5.4. The Appellant moved an application in the PIL proceedings seeking

copies of the FIRs registered pursuant to these police encounters.

The High Court granted him liberty to apply to the Prosecuting

Inspectors of each district in the State of Assam for accessing the

same. He consequently applied to the concerned authorities. The

Appellant appears to have maintained that there were 101 known

incidents at that point of time. However, only the authorities of 12

districts (out of total of 30), supplied him copies of 41 FIRs.

5.5. In the meantime, the Respondent No. 1, filed several compliance

affidavits before the High Court in the pending proceedings,

candidly acknowledging that between May 2021 and August 2022,

171 instance of police encounters had taken place wherein 56

persons were killed including 4 custodial deaths, and 145 persons

were injured. As such, the scope of the Petition was expanded, and

all 171 alleged police encounters between May 2021 and August

2022 came to be scrutinised.

Page 5 of 36

5.6. The High Court, however, after considering the affidavits filed by

the parties and other material on record, dismissed the petition

holding that that “unless proper foundational facts are brought to

the notice of the court, a Public Interest Litigation in such a matter

cannot be maintained merely on the basis of some vague and

unsubstantiated assertions”. The High Court returned a categorical

finding that the Appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in

the procedure adopted in any of the enquiry proceedings or any

guideline laid down in PUCL (supra) based on the materials

brought on record. Given the foregoing, the High Court also turned

down the prayer to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or

hand over the investigation of these encounters to the Central

Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The High Court ofcourse directed

that the Appellant shall be provided all legally permissible

documents in connection with all such cases.

B. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

6. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Appellant, strongly

contended that the High Court has fell in error in overlooking the

fact that 56 persons have lost their lives and 145 have been

grievously injured in police encounters. According to him, the

guidelines laid down in PUCL (supra) were not adhered to in any

of these incidents.

Page 6 of 36

7. In support of his contentions, Mr. Bhushan has advanced the

following submissions:

a) At the outset, any imputation on the bona fides of the

Appellant is unfounded. The Appellant is a permanent resident

of the State of Assam and being a practicing advocate,

espouses the cause of transparency and accountability of

public institutions. The majority of the victims and/or their

families are either unaware of their rights or are scared to

approach the police officials seeking further investigation.

b) The FIRs pertaining to the incidents of police encounters have

been registered against the victims i.e., the persons killed or

injured and not against the concerned police officials. The

registration of FIRs is in violation of the guidelines laid down

by this Court in Para 31.2 of the judgment in PUCL (supra)

which prescribes that in the event of an encounter leading to

death, an FIR shall be registered and forwarded to the

jurisdictional court under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (CrPC).

c) The investigation into these incidents of police encounters has

not been conducted in an independent manner. In this regard,

Para 31.3 of the judgment in PUCL (supra) mandates that an

independent investigation into the incident shall be conducted

Page 7 of 36

by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) or police team of

another police station under the supervision of a senior officer.

However, the investigation into these police encounters was

conducted by officers from the same police station.

d) Such so-called investigation was merely an eye wash and

nothing more than a superficial exercise, intended to create an

illusion of accountability. It was riddled with a glaring conflict

of interest, and not only did it compromise the integrity of the

process but also provided the officers involved with a

convenient opportunity to shield themselves from scrutiny and

evade any real consequences for their misconduct.

e) A perusal of the 41 FIRs supplied to the Appellant, 12 of which

were also placed on record before the High Court, clearly

indicates a somewhat similar modus operandi adopted by the

police officials who have justified the killings and injury caused

to people on the pretext that they were trying to flee. This gives

rise to the apprehension that the police officials have

undertaken these encounters in a premeditated manner and

not in self defence as proclaimed by them.

f) The guidelines laid down by this Court in PUCL (supra)

mandates that the concerned police official must surrender

their weapon for forensic/ballistic analysis. In breach of the

Page 8 of 36

prescribed guidelines, the Magisterial inquiries in several

incidents remain silent on this aspect, offering no indication

as to whether any ballistic or forensic examinations were ever

conducted. The Appellant has illustratively pointed out the

inquiry reports in the cases of deaths of Dimasa National

Liberation Army (DNLA) cadres, suspects of the United People’s

Revolutionary Front, Kanwaldeep Singh Sindhu, Sorangi

China, and Bubu Konwar which do not refer to the forensic

analysis.

g) Regardless of the clear mandate laid down in PUCL (supra),

which expressly requires a Magisterial inquiry or an

independent investigation even in cases involving grievous

injuries, this crucial procedural safeguard has been

disregarded. In the majority of such instances, no such inquiry

or investigation has been initiated, reflecting a serious

departure from the established legal framework intended to

ensure transparency and accountability.

h) The State of Assam has failed to indicate the present status of

investigation in all the 171 cases leading to death or grievous

injury. The table tendered before this Court on 25.02.2025

indicates that charge sheet has been filed in 5 out of the 41

cases leading to death. However, the charge sheets have not

Page 9 of 36

been placed on record, and it is feared that they may be against

the victims, not the concerned police personnel.

C. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S)

8. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, along with

Mr. Devajit Saikia, Advocate General and Mr. Nalin Kohli,

Additional Advocate General for the State of Assam, appearing for

Respondent Nos. 1-3 have vehemently asserted that the High Court

has rightly dismissed the PIL as the Appellant failed to establish or

point out any lacunae in the investigation conducted into the

instances of police encounters.

9. Their submissions may be summarised as follows:

a) The issues raised in the instant petition are vague, baseless

and whimsical, and the High Court rightly dismissed the same

as being premature. As per the reports submitted by the

Superintendent of Police of all the districts, the guidelines

issued by this Court in PUCL (supra) have been diligently

observed in all death cases.

b) In all instances where police encounters have resulted in

death, separate FIRs have been lodged ; independent

investigations have been conducted; and Magisterial inquiries

have also been ordered. In its affidavit dated 29.09.2022, the

Page 10 of 36

State of Assam has categorically stated that 171 cases have

been registered and that investigations are currently

underway.

c) The reliance placed by the Appellant on Para 31.3 of the

judgment in PUCL (supra) to suggest that ‘an independent

investigation into the incident shall be conducted by the CID or

police team of another police station’ in every incident, is

completely misplaced and incorrect. The judgment does not

contemplate the registration of FIR at a different police station.

The Appellant’s contention in this regard is thoroughly

untenable as the FIR has to be registered by the police station

having jurisdiction over the matter. The Appellant’s claim in

this regard would make the investigation unnecessarily

onerous and time -consuming. Similarly, the need for

constituting an independent investigating agency would arise

only when a prima facie case has been made out that

investigation is not being carried out in accordance with the

due procedure prescribed by law.

d) Fair and impartial magisterial inquiries have been conducted

in all incidents where death has been caused in police

encounters. More importantly, all these inquiries have been

undertaken strictly per the guidelines in PUCL (supra). The

Page 11 of 36

particulars of the stage of investigation or conduct of

magisterial inquiry in all 171 cases were placed before the High

Court vide the affidavit dated 29.09.2022.

e) Insofar as the reference to forensic/ballistic reports is

concerned, the Appellant has sought to present

unsubstantiaed claims without being supported by any cogent

facts. He has selectively read the reports and deliberately

concealed the fact that ballistic examination reports and

forensic reports were yet to be received in some cases, and in

others, were received later. Those reports were duly considered

before filing of the charge sheet or final report.

f) The Appellant’s contention that PUCL (supra) applies even in

cases of grievous injury is totally erroneous. The judgment only

provides that the guidelines will also apply to grievous injury

cases in police encounters, as far as possible. The phrase ‘as

far as possible’ shows that compliance and adherence to the

guidelines need not be made in a strict sense.

g) The allegation of the Appellant that the State of Assam has

failed to indicate the present status of the investigation is also

entirely misplaced. It is noteworthy that the State of Assam, in

its counter-affidavit dated 29.04.2024, has stated that out of a

total of 171 cases, charge sheets have been filed in 125 cases,

Page 12 of 36

forwarding reports were submitted in 23 cases, and that the

remaining 23 cases were still pending investigation. The

competent police officials have investigated all the cases under

the supervision of the Superintendent of Police of the

concerned districts.

D. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

10. Having regard to the rival submissions, we find that the following

issues arise for our consideration:

(a) Whether the allegations made by the Appellant prima facie

establish violation of the guidelines laid down by this Court in

PUCL (supra) ?

(b) If so, what are the remedial measures?

E. ANALYSIS

E.1. Understanding the Context and Framework of the Guidelines

laid down in PUCL (supra)

11. The instant controversy, in its core, revolves around the alleged

infraction of the PUCL (supra) guidelines. We therefore deem it

appropriate to firstly advert to the context, intent, and purport of

those guidelines.

12. The PUCL case arose against the backdrop of allegations of fake or

staged police encounters in the State of Maharashtra and other

Page 13 of 36

parts of the country, where individuals purported to be criminals

were killed by the police. The petitioner therein, PUCL, sought

court-monitored guidelines to curb the misuse of power and ensure

accountability and transparency in such encounters, in light of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

13. This Court recognised the gravity of the issue, noting that fake

encounters are extra-judicial killings and must be subject to strict

legal scrutiny. While issuing sixteen (16) mandatory guidelines, this

Court held that any encounter killing must be investigated fairly

and independently, and cannot be treated as justified merely on the

claim of self-defence by the Police.

14. To examine the contention at hand, we deem it appropriate to

extract a few guidelines that have been contested before us:

“31.1. Whenever the Police is in receipt of any intelligence

or tip-off regarding criminal movements or activities

pertaining to the Commission of grave criminal offence, it

shall be reduced into writing in some form (preferably into

case diary) or in some electronic form. Such recording

need not reveal details of the suspect or the location to

which the party is headed. If such intelligence or tip-off is

received by a higher authority, the same may be noted in

some form without revealing details of the suspect or the

location.

31.2. If pursuant to the tip-off or receipt of any

intelligence, as above, encounter takes place and

firearm is used by the police party and as a result

of that, death occurs, an FIR to that effect shall be

registered and the same shall be forwarded to the

court under Section 157 of the Code without any

delay. While forwarding the report under Section 157 of

Page 14 of 36

the Code, the procedure prescribed under Section 158 of

the Code shall be followed.

31.3. An independent investigation into the

incident/encounter shall be conducted by the CID or

police team of another police station under the

supervision of a senior officer (at least a level above

the head of the police party engaged in the encounter).

The team conducting inquiry/investigation shall, at a

minimum, seek...

31.4. A Magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the

Code must invariably be held in all cases of death

which occur in the course of police firing and a

report thereof must be sent to Judicial Magistrate having

jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code.

31.5. The involvement of NHRC is not necessary unless

there is serious doubt about independent and impartial

investigation. However, the information of the incident

without any delay must be sent to NHRC or the State

Human Rights Commission, as the case may be.

*****

31.7. It should be ensured that there is no delay in

sending FIR, diary entries, panchnamas, sketch, etc., to

the concerned Court.

31.8. After full investigation into the incident, the report

should be sent to the competent court under Section 173

of the Code. The trial, pursuant to the chargesheet

submitted by the Investigating Officer, must be concluded

expeditiously.

31.9. In the event of death, the next of kin of the alleged

criminal/victim must be informed at the earliest.

*****

31.13. The police officer(s) concerned must surrender

his/her weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis,

including any other material, as required by the

investigating team, subject to the rights under Article 20

of the Constitution.

*****

31.16. If the family of the victim finds that the above

procedure has not been followed or there exists a

pattern of abuse or lack of independent

investigation or impartiality by any of the

functionaries as above mentioned, it may make a

complaint to the Sessions Judge having territorial

jurisdiction over the place of incident. Upon such

complaint being made, the concerned Sessions Judge

Page 15 of 36

shall look into the merits of the complaint and address

the grievances raised therein.

32. The above guidelines will also be applicable to

grievous injury cases in police encounter, as far as

possible.”

15. It may be seen that the guidelines provide for the registration of

FIR, independent investigation, Magisterial inquiry, involvement of

forensic science, informing the next of kin, compensation and

information to the NHRC and State Human Rights Commission

(SHRC), among others. These guidelines, in a way, reaffirm the

primacy of the Rule of Law as the bedrock of our constitutional

democracy. This Court authoritatively held that no individual or

institution, including the Police or law enforcement agencies, is

above the law. It cautioned against the emerging culture of

glorifying police encounters as indicators of effective policing or

public heroism and observed that such glorification distorts the

role of the Police in a constitutional democracy and fosters a climate

of impunity, where extra-judicial methods are valorised over legal

processes.

16. It needs no emphasis that, 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. Any derogation from the principles of due process, even in

Page 16 of 36

the name of expediency or public safety, erodes the foundation of a

democratic and civilised society.

17. Having impressed upon the befitting relevance of the PUCL (supra)

principles and having delineated the dictum governing the present

controversy, the stage is now set to examine the rival contentions

advanced by the parties.

E.2.Whether the allegations made by the Appellant prima facie

establish violation of the guidelines laid down by this Court in PUCL

(supra) ?

E.2.1. Locus Standi of the Appellant

18. At the very outset, we deem it appropriate to address the objection

raised on behalf of the Respondent questioning the locus of the

Appellant to maintain the present proceedings. The Appellant

approached the High Court purportedly on the ground that the

victims and their families are either unaware of their legal rights or

too intimidated to approach the appropriate authorities. While such

apprehensions may not be entirely unfounded, the question that

arises is whether the Appellant, as a third party, can invoke the

Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court in a matter that appears to

impact specific individuals more directly than the public at large.

Page 17 of 36

19. It is trite law that since the evolution of the PIL jurisdiction,

particularly post the landmark pronouncements beginning in

1984, the doctrine of locus standi has been considerably liberalised.

The transformation of the traditional adversarial system into a

more participatory model, has allowed conscientious citizens to

knock at the doors of Constitutional Courts in matters involving

gross violations of Fundamental Rights, environmental

degradation, systemic corruption, or executive apathy affecting

large segments of society.

20. However, with the widening of the gates to justice, comes an

enhanced responsibility upon the court to ensure that this

jurisdiction is not invoked in a manner that causes more harm

than good. Where the alleged cause espoused by a third party in

the form of a PIL relates to a specific individual or a closed set of

individuals — particularly where the implications of judicial

intervention may directly alter or jeopardize the legal position of the

victim or their kin — it becomes imperative for the courts to tread

with utmost circumspection.

21. The danger of an unintended miscarriage of justice or irreversible

prejudice being caused to an invisible and voiceless victim or their

family, merely because a well-meaning but distanced individual

has approached a Writ Court, cannot be discounted. In such

Page 18 of 36

situations, it is not sufficient for the court to proceed solely on the

averments of the person advancing the cause before the court.

Instead, it becomes obligatory for the court to independently

explore mechanisms — institutional or otherwise — that can

facilitate direct communication with the victim or their family,

thereby enabling them to make an informed choice about

participation or redressal through judicial means.

22. Adverting the facts of this case, we deem it appropriate to

acknowledge the role played by the Appellant in bringing to the

court’s attention a matter that raises grave and disquieting

concerns. The assertion that several victims and their families are

either helpless to seek legal recourse or too intimidated to approach

the authorities need not be summarily disregarded. 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. The Appellant has, through sustained efforts,

placed before this Court as many as 171 individual instances, each

warranting objective scrutiny.

23. It must, however, be borne in mind that the mere compilation or

aggregation of cases does not, by itself, call for omnibus judicial

directions. The allegations that some of these incidents may involve

fake encounters are indeed serious and, if proven, would amount

Page 19 of 36

to a grave violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the

Constitution. It is however equally possible that upon a fair,

impartial, and independent investigation, some of these cases may

turn out to be necessary and legally justified. This distinction is

critical. The issuance of broad-brush directives without individual

scrutiny could result in a miscarriage of justice, either by shielding

the guilty or by stigmatizing legitimate action by public servants

discharging their duty under challenging circumstances.

24. It is in this delicate constitutional balance that the court must

situate its response. The invocation of public interest jurisdiction,

cannot become a substitute for procedural safeguards and the right

of individual victims or their families to be heard. The risk of issuing

general directions in the absence of independent assessment is not

merely procedural — it strikes at the very heart of the principles of

fairness and due process that underpin our judicial system. The

jurisprudence developed by this Court over the decades reinforces

the position that justice must be individualized where the

consequences are personal and irreversible.

25. It therefore becomes incumbent upon this Court to devise a

calibrated mechanism whereby each of the alleged incidents is

examined independently, and where victims or their families are

accorded a real and meaningful opportunity to participate in the

Page 20 of 36

process. Their voices must be heard not as a matter of courtesy,

but as a matter of right. 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.

E.2.2. Obligation of this Court to safeguard Constitutional

obligations

26. In order to consider the veracity of the allegations regarding the

violation of the guidelines enumerated in PUCL (supra), we have

already set out in detail the contentions advanced by the parties in

the preceding sections of this judgment. The contentions raised by

the Appellant are rooted in constitutional concerns relating to the

right to life and the accountability of law enforcement, particularly

in light of the binding nature of the procedural safeguards

mandated by this Court.

27. According to the Appellant, there has been a profound and systemic

failure in adhering to the cited guidelines, in the aftermath of a

series of police encounters in the State of Assam. The Appellant

alleges that in several cases, no FIR has been registered against the

concerned police officials, or the provisions invoked in the FIR are

not appropriate for cases of police encounters. It was also argued

that in some instances, the FIR has been registered against the

Page 21 of 36

victims of these police encounters and not the erring police officials.

According to the Appellant, such inappropriate registration of FIRs

directly contravenes this Court’s mandate, which unequivocally

requires that every case of encounter resulting in death or grievous

injury must be brought under the ambit of criminal law through

the registration of a case.

28. In addition, the Appellant has pointed to the absence of an

independent investigation by the CID or a police team from another

police station, which is a sine qua non under the PUCL (supra)

guidelines to ensure objectivity and prevent conflict of interest. The

Appellant has further alleged non-compliance with the requirement

of a magisterial inquiry in cases involving grievous injuries or

deaths, as well as the absence of any reference to ballistic and

forensic reports.

29. These allegations have however been vehemently refuted by the

Respondents, who submitted that in all instances where police

encounters have led to death, separate FIRs have been lodged, an

independent investigation conducted and a Magisterial Inquiry has

also been ordered. The State, in its counter-affidavit has stated that

out of a total of 171 cases, a charge sheet has been filed in 125

cases, a forwarding report submitted in 23 cases, and the

remaining 23 cases were still under investigation. The Respondents

Page 22 of 36

also maintain that the requirement of involving an independent

agency, such as the CID or a team from another police station,

must be assessed contextually, and not applied as a blanket

directive. Such recourse becomes necessary only where credible

allegations are raised suggesting bias, partiality, or procedural

deviation on the part of the local investigating authorities.

30. In essence, the thrust of the argument is that the guidelines in

PUCL (supra) are to be interpreted as laying down general

procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and transparency, but

not as creating a rigid or mechanical requirement that displaces

the jurisdiction of the local Police in every encounter case, unless

justified by the facts of the case.

31. Insofar as the allegation relating to the non-consideration of

ballistic and forensic reports is concerned, the Respondents have

submitted that the Appellant, in undue haste, has painted an

incomplete and premature portrait of the investigative process. The

Respondents claim that the concerned forensic and ballistic reports

were received and duly taken into account by the investigating

authorities, albeit at a later stage in the proceedings. Mere timing

of such consideration does not ipso facto establish procedural

impropriety, particularly when the reports form part of the final

investigative record.

Page 23 of 36

32. Upon a comprehensive examination, it emerges that several

instances cited by the Appellant to demonstrate procedural non-

compliance of PUCL (supra) guidelines are factually incorrect or

incomplete. The Appellant has failed to independently place on

record any cogent or verifiable material to substantiate the

allegations. He has merely relied upon the data furnished by the

State itself to highlight purported lapses. After minutely scanning

such data, prima facie it seems that barring a few cases, it is

difficult to infer that there has been a procedural breakdown or the

PUCL (supra) guidelines were flagrantly violated. Further, in the

absence of independent corroboration or affidavits from affected

persons, the assertions remain more or less speculative.

33. The record further suggests that FIRs have been registered in all

the cases brought to our notice. The State of Assam has also

submitted a status report detailing each FIR and the respective

stage of investigation or prosecution. These documents prima facie

belie the claim of inaction and do establish that, at least at the

foundational level, the criminal process was duly initiated.

34. As regards the requirement of magisterial inquiry under the

framework prescribed by PUCL (supra), the State has

demonstrated that such inquiries were conducted in several cases.

However, the record remains inconclusive as to whether this

Page 24 of 36

procedural safeguard was uniformly followed in all encounter-

related incidents, as is mandatorily required in terms of the

referenced judgment. While partial compliance is visible, the

absence of a clear and consistent procedural trail in some cases

calls for closer administrative scrutiny by an independent authority

to ensure uniform adherence.

35. On the aspect of forensic and ballistic analysis, the State of Assam

has acknowledged that relevant reports were obtained and

considered in the course of the investigation. Nonetheless, it is also

apparent that such consideration occurred belatedly. While delayed

compliance cannot be equated with total omission, the procedural

sanctity envisaged by this Court necessitates that such reports be

requisitioned and evaluated at the earliest possible stage to ensure

fairness and objectivity in the investigative process.

36. Be that as it may, the records furnished by the State themselves

indicate that some instances may warrant further evaluation to

ascertain whether the guidelines laid down in PUCL (supra) have

been meticulously complied with, in both letter and spirit. The

gravity of the issues involved, namely, implicating the Fundamental

Rights under Article 21 requires that procedural safeguards are not

merely observed in form, but are meaningfully enforced to inspire

public confidence in the Rule of Law.

Page 25 of 36

37. We may hasten to clarify that the foregoing observation should not

be construed as casting any aspersions on the investigation carried

out by the State of Assam. No finding of mala fides or institutional

bias can be returned through a summary procedure such as the

instant proceedings. Given the constitutional importance of the

procedural mandates enunciated by this Court, it is imperative, in

the interest of justice, that an impartial and independent

institution undertakes a careful verification of compliance in each

case. Such scrutiny, if undertaken in good faith and within the

administrative framework already available, will reinforce

transparency and accountability in the criminal justice process.

38. Thus, even if the Appellant has not been able to conclusively

demonstrate the allegations of illegality or procedural violation on

the part of the Respondents, this Court cannot remain indifferent

where the rights and dignity of individuals, particularly in the

context of alleged extra-judicial actions, are at stake. To ensure

justice to the victims and their families, and to uphold the sanctity

of the procedure established by law, we hold that the issues raised

in the instant petition merit a fair and impartial inquiry. The

obligation of this Court to safeguard constitutional guarantees

persists irrespective of the identity or capacity of the litigant, and

where concerns arise regarding adherence to judicially mandated

Page 26 of 36

guidelines, the Constitutional Courts must act to preserve both

legality and accountability.

E.3. If so, what are the remedial measures?

39. Having held that the issue raised in the instant appeal requires fact

finding inquiry, we now proceed to analyse what would constitute

an appropriate response to these apprehensions.

E.3.1. Role of the National and State Human Rights Commissions

in the instant controversy

40. The domestic human rights architecture in India is supported by a

robust statutory framework that complements the constitutional

guarantees enshrined in Part III and the Directive Principles of

State Policy. Over the years, the Legislature has enacted various

laws to protect vulnerable groups, ensure accountability, and

strengthen institutional mechanisms for enforcing human rights.

At the centre of this framework stands the Protection of Human

Rights Act, 1993 (PHR Act), which institutionalises the

commitment of the Indian State to uphold and monitor human

rights in a structured and independent manner.

41. The PHR Act serves as the primary statutory instrument for the

promotion and protection of human rights in India. The Act defines

‘human rights’ under Section 2(d) as the ‘rights relating to life,

liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the

Page 27 of 36

Constitution or embodied in international covenants and enforceable

by Indian courts’. The establishment of the NHRC and SHRC under

the PHR Act reflects an attempt to create autonomous, quasi -

judicial bodies capable of independent inquiry and intervention in

matters concerning human rights violations. These institutions are

vested with wide-ranging powers, including the ability to summon

witnesses, requisition public records, and initiate investigations

suo motu or on petitions filed by aggrieved individuals. In practice,

they function as vital conduits for bringing instances of abuse or

administrative apathy to the fore, particularly where traditional

avenues of redress may be inaccessible or delayed.

42. The PHR Act institutionalises grievance redressal, oversight, and

education mechanisms while linking domestic law with

international human rights instruments. These multifaceted roles

underscore the position that these Commissions not merely a

reactive body responding to complaints, but a proactive institution

seeking systemic reform and capacity -building across state

institutions. Though challenges in implementation and

enforcement persist, the PHR Act represents a formal legislative

acknowledgement of the inalienable nature of human rights and

India’s democratic obligation to protect them.

Page 28 of 36

43. This Court in the matter of Extra Judicial Execution Victim and

Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.,

2 has rightly underscored the

roles of the Human Rights Commission as ‘that of protector, advisor,

monitor and educator of human rights’. In that spirit, it is imperative

that their functioning is empowered, respected, and made

responsive, so that they may discharge their duties not merely as

passive observers but as active protectors of fundamental human

freedoms.

44. Applying this understanding of the human rights framework to the

instant controversy, we have no hesitation in holding that the role

of Human Rights Commissions, both at the National and State

levels, is paramount in a democratic polity governed by the Rule of

Law. These institutions serve as independent watchdogs tasked

with safeguarding the dignity, liberty, and rights of individuals,

particularly the vulnerable and marginalised who may lack access

to institutional redress. In a country as vast and diverse as India,

marked by complex socio -political dynamics and systemic

inequities, these Commissions provide an essential forum for

accountability, transparency, and remedial action against human

rights violations. Their mandate to investigate complaints, monitor

2

Extra Judicial Execution Victim and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors, Writ Petition (Crl.)

No. 129/2012.

Page 29 of 36

custodial institutions, and recommend reforms reinforces the

constitutional vision of justice, liberty, and equality.

45. To that effect, we are pained to observe that, in this matter, the

jurisdiction of AHRC was consciously ousted. It is a matter of

record that AHRC had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter

even before the Appellant filed a complaint before the NHRC.

Despite the AHRC being seized of the matter and also being the

appropriate forum vested with territorial and subject -matter

jurisdiction, the Appellant chose to invoke the PIL jurisdiction of

the High Court at a subsequent stage, as a result of which the

AHRC disposed of the proceedings hastily.

46. We are certain that the Appellant did not approach the High Court

with an intention to render statutory institutions redundant or to

obstruct their independent functioning. Human Rights

Commissions, particularly those functioning at the state level, are

designed to act as swift, accessible, and credible bodies for

investigating and redressing violations of human dignity and

constitutional safeguards. We reiterate that the efficacy of such

institutions is directly linked to public trust and procedural

integrity. We also expect these Human Rights Commissions to be

proactive in their approach and conduct proceedings with a sense

Page 30 of 36

of urgency and purpose that resonates with the gravity of the

allegations.

E.3.2. Striking the Constitutional Balance: The Path Ahead

47. Having considered the nature of the controversy, we are of the firm

view that the instant case involves several questions of fact which

cannot be effectively determined by this Court. Similarly, the

instant dispute is neither amenable to adjudication through a

conventional trial, nor can the investigation be fairly or effectively

entrusted to the State Police, as the allegations pertain to the

conduct of police officials themselves. The principle of fairness,

which is the bedrock of all just legal processes, mandates that any

inquiry into the alleged excesses must be independent and

insulated from institutional bias. The risk of conflict of interest and

the apprehension of a lack of real or perceived impartiality render

it inappropriate to involve the State Police in further inquiry.

48. Having outlined the significance, jurisdiction, and institutional

mandate of the Human Rights Commissions , it has come to our

knowledge that the AHRC is now headed by an erudite jurist who

is a retired Chief Justice of the High Court whose judicial acumen

and integrity inspire confidence. This Court has every reason to

believe that under his stewardship, the AHRC will discharge its

duties with diligence, sensitivity, and an abiding commitment to

Page 31 of 36

constitutional values. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to

entrust the inquiry of this matter to the AHRC for advancing it to

its logical conclusion. The order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the

full bench of the AHRC, whereby it had disposed of this issue is

thus, set aside. The matter is directed to be reinstated on the board

of the AHRC for necessary inquiry into the allegations

independently and expeditiously, in accordance with law.

49. In furtherance of the foregoing direction, we consider it essential to

ensure that the victims of the alleged incidents, or their family

members, are given a fair and meaningful opportunity to

participate in the proceedings. To that end, we direct the AHRC to

issue a public notice inviting all individuals who claim to be

aggrieved (victims and their family members) by the alleged police

encounters to come forward and furnish relevant information or

evidence before AHRC. The notice shall be published in at least one

national English daily and one prominent vernacular newspaper

with wide circulation throughout the State of Assam. The

publication of such a notice shall be carried out in a manner that

is accessible and understandable to the general public, including

those residing in remote and conflict-prone areas. The notice shall

also include the contact details of the officers of the Taluka and

District Legal Services Authorities, thereby enabling the victims

Page 32 of 36

and/or their families to access free legal aid in approaching the

AHRC.

50. We further direct that the AHRC may ensure confidentiality with

respect to the identity of the victims, their families, or any other

individuals who approach it in connection with the inquiry. AHRC

is expected to adopt robust measures akin to witness protection

protocols to safeguard the privacy, safety and security of those

participating in the process. We say so because the protection of

such identities is imperative to create an atmosphere of trust and

prevent any fear of reprisal or intimidation. We trust that the AHRC

will proceed with the highest degree of sensitivity, impartiality, and

diligence, thereby reinforcing public faith in the institutional

mechanisms for protecting human rights.

51. Should the AHRC, in the course of its inquiry, form the opinion that

a more detailed investigation is warranted to ascertain the facts and

circumstances surrounding the alleged encounters, it shall be at

liberty to initiate such an investigation through means it deems fit.

For this purpose, the AHRC may engage the services of retired or

serving police officers of impeccable integrity and unblemished

record, provided that such officers are not in any way connected

with or subordinate to the police personnel involved in the alleged

Page 33 of 36

incidents. The choice of personnel and the manner of conducting

such an investigation shall remain within the discretion of AHRC.

52. We direct the State of Assam to extend full cooperation to the AHRC

and ensure that all logistical, financial, and administrative

requirements for such an investigation are promptly and

adequately met. The State is also directed to provide access to

records, facilitate the availability of forensic and expert resources,

and remove any institutional barriers that may hinder the

functioning of AHRC.

53. Furthermore, to ensure that victims and their families are not

disadvantaged due to a lack of resources or awareness, we direct

the Assam State Legal Services Authority (ASLSA) to make legal

assistance available to any such individuals who may seek support

in approaching or presenting their case before the AHRC. We direct

the Member Secretary of the ASLSA to issue specific instructions

to District and Taluk level officers in this regard.

54. In this vein, the Appellant in his capacity as an Advocate, shall be

free to represent the victims or their families before the AHRC, if so

engaged by them.

Page 34 of 36

F. CONCLUSION

55. Considering the totality of the circumstances and for the reasons

assigned hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the

instant appeal with the following directions:

a) The Impugned Judgment of the High Court dated 27.01.2023

is set aside;

b) The order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the full bench of the

AHRC disposing of this issue on the pretext that the subject

matter was sub-judice before the High Court is also set aside.

This matter is directed to be reinstated on the board of the

AHRC for necessary inquiry into the allegations independently

and expeditiously, in accordance with law;

c) The AHRC is directed to issue a public notice inviting all

individuals who claim to be aggrieved (victims and their family

members) by the alleged police encounters to come forward

and furnish relevant information or evidence before the AHRC.

The notice shall be published in at least one national English

daily and one prominent vernacular newspapers with wide

circulation throughout the State of Assam. The notice shall

also include the contact details of the officers of the Taluka and

District Legal Services Authorities, thereby enabling the

victims and/or their families to access free legal aid;

Page 35 of 36

d) AHRC may ensure that the identity of the victims, their

families, or any other individuals who appr oach it in

connection with the inquiry shall be strictly confidential. AHRC

is expected to adopt robust measures akin to witness

protection protocols;

e) During the course of its inquiry, if the AHRC forms the opinion

that a more detailed investigation is warranted, it shall be at

liberty to initiate such an investigation through means it

deems fit. For this purpose, the AHRC may engage the services

of retired or serving police officers of impeccable integrity and

unblemished record, provided that such officers are not in any

way connected with the police personnel involved in the alleged

incidents;

f) The State of Assam is directed to extend full cooperation to the

AHRC and ensure that all logistical, financial, and

administrative requirements for such an investigation are

promptly and adequately met;

g) We direct the ASLSA to make legal assistance available to

individuals seeking support in approaching or presenting their

case before the AHRC for which its Member Secretary is

directed to issue specific instructions to the District and Taluk

level officers; and

Page 36 of 36

h) The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending interlocutory

applications, if any, are also disposed of.

56. Ordered accordingly.

…..………………… J.

[SURYA KANT]

………..……………………. ………………… J.

[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH ]

NEW DELHI

DATED: 28.05.2025