LEGAL ISSUE: Investigation into alleged extrajudicial killings by security forces.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Writ Petition
Case Name: Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Assn. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Judgment Date: July 14, 2017
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: July 14, 2017
Citation: Not Available in Source
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Can the state ignore allegations of extrajudicial killings simply because of the passage of time? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving alleged fake encounters in Manipur. The Court, concerned about human rights violations, ordered a thorough investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into these incidents. This judgment highlights the importance of accountability and the rule of law, even in cases involving security forces. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Case Background
The case originated from allegations that 1528 individuals were killed in fake encounters by police and armed forces personnel in Manipur. The petitioners, Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association, sought a thorough investigation into these alleged extrajudicial killings. Initially, the Supreme Court, following the precedent set in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India [(1998) 2 SCC 109], emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry into incidents involving excessive or retaliatory force by uniformed personnel. However, due to inadequate documentation, the Court directed the petitioners to provide further evidence, including details of any judicial inquiries, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) inquiries, or inquiries under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 16.03.2005 | Death of L.D. Rengtuiwan (not mentioned in writ petition) |
| 06.12.2003 | Death of N. Sanjita Devi (not mentioned in writ petition) |
| 04.07.2001 | Deaths of Amom Rajan Meitei and 10 others |
| 27.12.1996 | Deaths of Thoudam Munindro Singh and another |
| 06.04.1996 | Death of Oinam Ongbi Amina Devi |
| 15.06.1985 | Deaths of Angom Raghumani Singh and 12 others |
| 14th December, 1993 | NHRC directed law and order agencies across the country to report matters relating to custodial deaths and rapes within 24 hours. |
| 10th August, 1995 | NHRC sent a letter to all Chief Ministers advising them of the necessity of introducing video-filming of post-mortem examinations from 1st October, 1995 onwards |
| 27th March, 1997 | NHRC sent a letter to all Chief Ministers recommending that all States adopt the “Model Autopsy Form” and “Additional Procedure for Inquest” prepared by the NHRC. |
| 29th March 1997 | NHRC issued Guidelines recommending the procedure to be followed by States and Union Territories with regard to encounter deaths. |
| 2nd December, 2003 | NHRC revised and circulated the Guidelines to introduce greater transparency and accountability. |
| 12th May, 2010 | NHRC further revised and circulated the Guidelines. |
| July 8, 2016 | Supreme Court’s initial order on the matter. |
| July 14, 2017 | Final judgment of the Supreme Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The Gauhati High Court had previously entertained writ petitions concerning allegations of extrajudicial killings, ordering judicial inquiries in some cases. The Supreme Court noted that two writ petitions were still pending before the High Court and requested the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court to expedite their disposal. One writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, indicating no substance in the allegations. However, in several other cases, the High Court had awarded compensation to the next of kin of the deceased, suggesting a prima facie case of a fake encounter or use of excessive force.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily relies on the principles of human rights and the rule of law. The Supreme Court referred to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, emphasizing the importance of accountability and transparency in human rights jurisprudence. The Court also discussed the role of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and its guidelines for handling cases of custodial deaths and encounter killings. The court highlighted that the NHRC’s guidelines, which mandate the registration of FIRs, magisterial inquiries, and compensation for victims, are essential for upholding human rights.
The relevant legal provisions include:
- The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which defines “human rights” as “the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.”
- Section 11 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which mandates that “The Central Government shall make available to the Commission… such police and investigative staff… as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Commission.”
Arguments
The petitioners argued for an independent investigation into the alleged extrajudicial killings, emphasizing the need for accountability and justice for the victims. They highlighted the findings of various commissions of inquiry, judicial inquiries, and the NHRC, which indicated a prima facie case of excessive force by security personnel.
The Attorney General, representing the Union of India, raised several objections:
- That some incidents were old, and it might not be appropriate to reopen the issues.
- That local pressures and ground realities could lead to biased inquiries against the state.
- That many next of kin had not approached the court, and the court should not entertain a petition from a third party.
- That compensation had already been paid to the next of kin, making further action unnecessary.
The Supreme Court rejected all these arguments:
- The Court stated that the passage of time could not be a reason to avoid investigating a crime, especially one involving the potential loss of innocent lives.
- The Court also dismissed the argument that all inquiries in Manipur were biased, stating that such an argument would cast aspersions on the independence of the authorities.
- The Court emphasized that access to justice is a human right, and public interest litigation allows the court to address the grievances of those who cannot access justice through normal channels.
- The Court held that compensation is meant to provide immediate relief and rehabilitation but cannot override the need for a criminal investigation.
The innovativeness of the argument from the petitioners was that they brought forth the issue of human rights violations through public interest litigation, highlighting the inability of the victims’ families to access justice through regular channels.
Submissions Table
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Petitioners | Independent Investigation |
|
| Union of India (Attorney General) | No Further Action Needed |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the allegations of extrajudicial killings warranted an independent investigation, despite the passage of time and other objections raised by the Union of India.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the age of the incidents is a valid reason to avoid investigation? | No | The Court held that the passage of time cannot be a reason to avoid investigating a crime, especially one involving the potential loss of innocent lives. |
| Whether local pressures and ground realities justify avoiding investigation? | No | The Court rejected the argument that all inquiries in Manipur were biased, stating that such an argument would cast aspersions on the independence of the authorities. |
| Whether the lack of direct approach by the next of kin is a valid reason to dismiss the petition? | No | The Court emphasized that access to justice is a human right, and public interest litigation allows the court to address the grievances of those who cannot access justice through normal channels. |
| Whether compensation already paid makes further action unnecessary? | No | The Court held that compensation is meant to provide immediate relief and rehabilitation but cannot override the need for a criminal investigation. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India [(1998) 2 SCC 109] | Supreme Court of India | The Court followed the principle laid down in this case that an allegation of use of excessive force or retaliatory force by uniformed personnel resulting in the death of any person necessitates a thorough enquiry into the incident. |
| Bharati Tamang v. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 15 SCC 578] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to support its decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team to ensure that criminal prosecution is carried out without any deficiency. |
| R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. [(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 143] | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize the need for an independent agency to conduct investigations when allegations are against local police personnel. |
| Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das [(2010) 14 SCC 209] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to define human rights and emphasize that these rights are enforceable by courts in India. |
| Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 | Parliament of India | The Court relied on this Act to highlight the importance of accountability and transparency in human rights jurisprudence and the role of the NHRC. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| That some incidents are of considerable vintage and at this point of time it may not be appropriate to re-open the issues for investigation. | Rejected. The Court held that the passage of time cannot be a reason to avoid investigating a crime. |
| That there were local pressures and the ground level situation was such that it would not be surprising if the inquiries were biased in favour of the citizens and against the State. | Rejected. The Court stated that such an argument would cast aspersions on the independence of the authorities. |
| That in many instances the next of kin of the deceased had not approached this Court and there is no reason why we should entertain a petition filed by a third party. | Rejected. The Court emphasized that access to justice is a human right and public interest litigation is permissible. |
| That compensation has been paid to the next of kin for the unfortunate deaths and therefore it may be not necessary to proceed further in the matter. | Rejected. The Court held that compensation does not override the law of the land and the need for a criminal investigation. |
Treatment of Authorities
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India [(1998) 2 SCC 109] | Followed. The Court reiterated the principle that allegations of excessive force by uniformed personnel require thorough inquiry. |
| Bharati Tamang v. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 15 SCC 578] | Followed. The Court used this case to justify the constitution of a Special Investigation Team. |
| R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. [(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 143] | Followed. The Court relied on this case to justify the appointment of an independent investigating agency. |
| Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das [(2010) 14 SCC 209] | Followed. The Court used this case to define human rights and emphasize their enforceability. |
| Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 | Relied upon. The Court emphasized the importance of accountability and transparency in human rights jurisprudence and the role of the NHRC. |
The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and authorities, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a thorough investigation into the cases of alleged extrajudicial killings. The Court emphasized that “If a crime has been committed, a crime which involves the death of a person who is possibly innocent, it cannot be over-looked only because of a lapse of time.” The Court also noted that “Access to justice is certainly a human right and it has been given a special place in our constitutional scheme.” It further stated that “Compensation has been awarded to the next of kin for the agony they have suffered and to enable them to immediately tide over their loss and for their rehabilitation. This cannot override the law of the land.”
The Court rejected the argument that the state could avoid its obligation to investigate due to the passage of time or local pressures. The Court also rejected the argument that since the next of kin had not approached the court, the court should not entertain a petition filed by a third party, stating that the constitution allows the court to address the grievances of those who cannot access justice through normal channels.
The Court also addressed the role and functioning of the NHRC. The Court noted that the NHRC has been reduced to a “toothless tiger” due to non-compliance of its guidelines and lack of adequate staff. The Court directed the Union of India to take note of the concerns of the NHRC and remedy them at the earliest.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a strong sense of justice and a commitment to upholding human rights. The Court emphasized the importance of accountability and the rule of law, particularly in cases involving allegations of extrajudicial killings by security forces. The Court was deeply concerned about the potential loss of innocent lives and the need to ensure that such incidents are thoroughly investigated. The Court also highlighted the importance of access to justice for all citizens, especially those who are marginalized and unable to seek justice through normal channels. The Court expressed disappointment with the lack of implementation of NHRC guidelines and the inadequate support provided to the NHRC.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of Accountability and Rule of Law | 30% |
| Concern about Human Rights Violations | 25% |
| Need for Independent Investigation | 20% |
| Access to Justice | 15% |
| Criticism of NHRC’s Functioning | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Aspect | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 40% |
| Law (Legal considerations) | 60% |
Logical Reasoning Flowchart
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the passage of time cannot be a reason to avoid investigating serious crimes, particularly those involving potential loss of innocent lives.
- The Court affirmed that access to justice is a fundamental human right and that public interest litigation is a valid mechanism for addressing the grievances of marginalized communities.
- The Court held that compensation to victims does not preclude the need for a criminal investigation.
- The Court highlighted the importance of independent investigations, particularly when allegations are against state agencies.
- The Court expressed serious concerns about the functioning of the NHRC and directed the Union of India to address its issues.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was directed to nominate a team of five officers to investigate the cases mentioned in the judgment.
- The CBI was directed to lodge necessary FIRs and complete the investigations by December 31, 2017, and prepare charge sheets where necessary.
- The State of Manipur was directed to extend full cooperation and assistance to the Special Investigating Team.
- The Union of India was directed to render full assistance to the Special Investigating Team to complete the investigation without any unnecessary hindrances.
- The Union of India was directed to take note of the concerns of the NHRC and remedy them at the earliest.
- All State Governments were expected to abide by the directions issued by the NHRC in regard to compensation and other issues.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that allegations of extrajudicial killings must be thoroughly investigated, regardless of the passage of time or other objections raised by the state. The judgment reinforces the principle that access to justice is a fundamental human right and that public interest litigation is a valid mechanism for addressing the grievances of marginalized communities. The Court also emphasized the importance of independent investigations and the need for the NHRC to function effectively. This case did not change any previous positions of law but rather reinforced existing principles of human rights and the rule of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Assn. vs. Union of India is a significant step towards ensuring accountability for alleged extrajudicial killings in Manipur. By ordering a CBI investigation and addressing the systemic issues with the NHRC, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding human rights and the rule of law. This case serves as a reminder that the state cannot avoid its obligations to investigate serious crimes and that access to justice must be available to all citizens.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:
- Extrajudicial Killings
- Human Rights Violations
- Public Interest Litigation
- National Human Rights Commission
- Central Bureau of Investigation
Parent Category: Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
Child Categories:
- Section 11, Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Assn. vs. Union of India case?
A: The main issue was the allegation of 1528 extrajudicial killings in Manipur by police and armed forces personnel and whether these allegations warranted an independent investigation.
Q: What did the Supreme Court order in this case?
A: The Supreme Court ordered a CBI investigation into the alleged extrajudicial killings and directed the Union of India to address the concerns of the NHRC.
Q: Can the state avoid investigating a crime due to the passage of time?
A: No, the Supreme Court held that the passage of time cannot be a reason to avoid investigating a serious crime, especially one involving potential loss of innocent lives.
Q: What is the role of the NHRC in cases of human rights violations?
A: The NHRC is a statutory body responsible for protecting, advising, monitoring, and educating on human rights. It issues guidelines and recommendations for handling cases of human rights violations.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the importance of accountability, the rule of law, and access to justice, particularly in cases involving allegations of human rights violations by state agencies.