Summary
An advocate's PIL alleging that 171 police encounters in Assam between May 2021 and August 2022 (56 deaths, 145 injured) violated the PUCL v. State of Maharashtra guidelines was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court as premature and vague. The Supreme Court set that aside: although the appellant had not conclusively proved violations and most instances were not shown to be non-compliant, the record was inconclusive on uniform magisterial inquiries and showed belated use of forensic reports, so the Article 21 stakes required independent verification. The Court entrusted the inquiry to the Assam Human Rights Commission, reviving its suo motu proceedings, with directions on public notice, victim participation, confidentiality, independent investigators, State cooperation and legal aid.
Issues
- Whether a third party may maintain a PIL concerning alleged fake encounters affecting specific victims, and with what safeguards.
- Whether the allegations prima facie established violation of the guidelines laid down in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra.
- What remedial measures were appropriate, and whether the inquiry should be entrusted to the State Human Rights Commission rather than the State police or a court-monitored agency.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaFake encounters, if proved, are a grave violation of the right to life; the gravity of the issues required that the procedural safeguards mandated in PUCL be meaningfully enforced and independently verified rather than observed in form only, which grounded the Court's duty to act despite the appellant's failure to prove violations conclusively. (¶¶ 12, 23, 36, 38)
- Section 2(d) and the scheme establishing the NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions, Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993The Court described human rights as defined in Section 2(d) and the Commissions as autonomous quasi-judicial bodies with powers to summon witnesses, requisition records and investigate suo motu, holding that they are the appropriate independent watchdogs to verify compliance with the PUCL guidelines and entrusting the inquiry to the AHRC. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48)
- Regulation 7(XII), Assam Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001The AHRC had disposed of its suo motu proceedings because the regulation bars entertaining complaints that are sub judice before a court. The Court regretted that the AHRC's jurisdiction was thereby ousted by the later PIL, set aside the AHRC's order of 12.01.2022 and reinstated the matter on its board. (¶¶ 5.3, 45, 48, 55)
Held
- Although the doctrine of locus standi has been liberalised in PIL jurisdiction, where the cause espoused by a third party relates to specific individuals or a closed set of individuals whose legal position may be directly altered by judicial intervention, courts must tread with circumspection. It is not sufficient to proceed on the averments of the person advancing the cause; the court must independently explore mechanisms enabling the victims or their families to make an informed choice about participation and redress. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The mere compilation or aggregation of cases does not by itself call for omnibus judicial directions. Some encounters may on investigation prove justified, so broad-brush directives without individual scrutiny could shield the guilty or stigmatise legitimate action; public interest jurisdiction cannot substitute for procedural safeguards and the right of individual victims to be heard, and justice must be individualised where the consequences are personal and irreversible. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- On the record, several instances cited by the appellant were factually incorrect or incomplete and he relied only on the State's own data without independent corroboration; FIRs had been registered in all cases and a status report filed. However, the record was inconclusive on whether magisterial inquiries were uniformly held in all encounter deaths, and forensic and ballistic reports, though obtained, were considered belatedly. Delayed compliance is not total omission, but such reports must be requisitioned and evaluated at the earliest stage, and some instances warranted further evaluation. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- No finding of mala fides or institutional bias could be returned in a summary proceeding, but given the constitutional importance of the PUCL mandates an impartial and independent institution had to verify compliance in each case. Even where the petitioner has not conclusively demonstrated illegality, a constitutional court cannot remain indifferent where the rights and dignity of individuals are at stake in alleged extra-judicial actions; the issues merited a fair and impartial inquiry. (¶¶ 37, 38)
- The dispute involved questions of fact not amenable to adjudication by the Court or to a conventional trial, and the inquiry could not fairly be entrusted to the State police because the allegations concerned police officials themselves. The Human Rights Commissions under the Protection of Human Rights Act are the appropriate independent fora; the AHRC, which had taken suo motu cognizance even before the appellant complained to the NHRC, had its jurisdiction ousted by the PIL and was now headed by a retired Chief Justice, so the inquiry was entrusted to it. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)
- Directions: the AHRC to publish a public notice in a national English daily and a prominent vernacular newspaper inviting victims and their families to furnish information, with contact details of Taluka and District Legal Services Authorities; the AHRC to keep the identity of those approaching it confidential and adopt measures akin to witness protection; liberty to the AHRC to conduct a detailed investigation through retired or serving police officers of impeccable integrity unconnected with the personnel involved; the State to extend full logistical, financial and administrative cooperation and access to records and forensic resources; the Assam State Legal Services Authority to provide legal assistance; the appellant free to represent victims before the AHRC if engaged. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 27.01.2023 set aside; AHRC order dated 12.01.2022 set aside and the matter reinstated before the AHRC for independent and expeditious inquiry with the directions in paragraph 55; pending applications disposed of.