Allegations of fake encounters in Assam serious, Human Rights Commission should take proactive stance: Supreme Court.

New Delhi. Hearing a petition raising the issue of 'fake' encounters in Assam, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said there is a legislative mandate behind the establishment of human rights commissions and they are expected to work proactively in matters of civil liberties.Assam In the context of, it sought data regarding investigations, if any, initiated by the Assam Human Rights Commission in cases where allegations of 'fake' encounters were made. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a special leave petition filed against the order of the Gauhati High Court which had dismissed the petitioner's PIL raising the same issue. Reportedly, the High Court was of the view that there was no need for separate investigation into the alleged incidents, as the state authorities were investigating each case.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that hundreds of encounters have taken place in Assam and there has been a gross violation of the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the case PUCL vs State of Maharashtra. He urged that in most of the cases there was neither any forensic and ballistic analysis, nor any magisterial inquiry or independent investigation. Instead, FIRs were filed against the encounter victims and the policemen accused of the encounters themselves investigated the cases of the encounter victims.

Citing specific incidents and affidavits filed by victims of the encounters, Bhushan drew the court's attention to the case of a woman who claimed that her husband was murdered in police custody. According to the woman, her husband had multiple injuries (missing nails, broken bones, etc.) on his body, indicating third-degree torture. Emphasizing that an FIR was lodged against the victims of the encounters , the lawyer insisted that no investigation was ever conducted into the allegations that the encounters were fake.

On the other hand, Assam's Additional Advocate General Nalin Kohli said that the High Court expressed concern about the credibility of the petitioner and the “patently false” statements. Further, it was urged that the petitioner's PIL was premature and essentially, he had sought data through Article 226 petition. Hearing the lawyers, the bench asked whether the National Human Rights Commission has ordered any inquiry into the matter. Responding to this, Bhushan said that the petitioner had first approached the NHRC. However, the NHRC transferred the case to the State Human Rights Commission, which closed it.

Criticizing the closure by the Assam HRC, Bhushan said that the Commission did nothing for 6 months, and only after that, the petitioner filed a PIL before the High Court, citing which the Assam HRC closed the case before it. Even though notice was not issued to him (or to the State of Assam). The bench said that the matter is very serious and worrying as 'fake' encounters have been alleged in 171 cases. Some of these cases have resulted in death, while others have resulted in serious injuries.

Justice Bhuiyan said, “Such a petition cannot be prematurely dismissed…The fact is that the encounter took place…[असम] has had a troubled past and the reports are in the public domain…the number of 171 cases is quite large…the circumstances under which the accused died raise serious doubts… […] Referring to the Jorhat incident, where the accused was arrested at 3 am […] From behind a vehicle…In an incident in Moregaon, the accused was found jumping into a well along with handcuffs.”

Justice Bhuyan further expressed grief over the targeting of indigenous communities and said, “They are being targeted!” Also cited the recent judicial inquiry report of the commission, in which two people were killed and others were injured. “BD Aggarwal has recently submitted a judicial inquiry report which says that the police crossed the limits. Although the eviction was justified”.

Along with this, Justice Kant said, “The allegations are of serious nature. We hope that the Human Rights Commission will be active…”. In response, Kohli said that the Assam Police is not concerned with the identity of the accused persons and the eviction In the case, action was taken in compliance with the order of the High Court.

Responding to the “troublesome past” comment, the AAG argued that Assam has come a long way in the war against insurgency. He said the angle of crime has changed – 'drugs' are the new battle. Pointing out how Assam acts as a gateway, he said the court should also take into account other factors while considering the history of Assam.

Hearing him, the Court assured that it is conscious of the sensitivity of Assam and its geographical location. However, the present case does not relate to drugs, and even otherwise, the order of the PUCL decision must be complied with. The Court further held that it is the duty of the Human Rights Commission to pursue complaints on its own, whether or not the relatives of the victim/victim pursue it. Ultimately, the Court asked the lawyers to bring data on two aspects – (i) Who investigated the allegations and what was the outcome? (ii) Does the State Human Rights Commission conduct any independent investigation using its own investigative machinery?

The petition has been filed by Arif Mohammad Yasin Javadar, a lawyer from Assam, raising the issue of encounters by police personnel in the state. The petitioner claims that since May 2021 (when Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma took charge), more than 80 fake encounters took place between Assam Police and persons accused in various cases. He is demanding investigation by an independent agency like CBI, SIT or police teams of other states. A notice was issued on the petition on July 17 last year, in which apart from the Assam government, the response was sought from the National Human Rights Commission and the Assam Human Rights Commission. Had gone.

In April, the Court had suggested that the petitioner place some additional information on record. Accordingly, he has filed affidavits of the victims of the Tinsukia encounter case, in which three persons (Deepjyoti Neog, Biswanath Bargohain and Manoj Bargohain) were allegedly injured in police firing.

The petitioner has said that the family members of Biswanath and Manoj, two victims of the Tinsukia encounter case, wanted to file a missing report. But, the officer in-charge of the concerned police station refused to register the complaint until he mentioned that the victims were going to join the banned militant organisation-ULFA. Instead, FIRs were filed against the victims after the encounter took place.

It has also been alleged that the officer in-charge of police station Dhola (Assam) appointed himself the investigating officer in the case even though he was present at the spot at the time of the encounter and the pistol was allegedly snatched by the victim Deepjyoti Neog.