The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to conduct an independent inquiry into alleged police encounters, emphasizing adherence to PUCL guidelines. The Court mandated public notice for victims, confidentiality of identities, and the provision of legal aid, reinforcing the AHRC’s role in upholding human rights and ensuring accountability.
Facts Of The Case:
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder, the appellant, brought an appeal against the Gauhati High Court’s judgment dated January 27, 2023, which dismissed PIL No. 86/2021. The PIL sought records of alleged fake encounters in Assam, registration of FIRs against police officials, and independent investigations in compliance with the guidelines laid down in People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (PUCL). The High Court dismissed the PIL as premature, citing vague assertions, but directed that the appellant be provided with legally permissible documents.The appellant alleged that 80 fake encounters occurred in Assam between May and December 2021, resulting in 28 deaths and 48 injuries, which police justified as self-defense during escape attempts. The appellant complained to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on July 10, 2021. The Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) also took suo motu notice of the issue on July 7, 2021, and sought a report from the Government of Assam. The NHRC transferred the appellant’s complaint to the AHRC on November 29, 2021. Subsequently, the appellant filed the PIL in the High Court on December 20, 2021. The AHRC later disposed of its matter on January 12, 2022, due to the pendency of the PIL in the High Court.The State of Assam, Respondent No. 1, acknowledged that between May 2021 and August 2022, 171 police encounters took place, resulting in 56 deaths (including 4 custodial deaths) and 145 injuries. The High Court, after considering the affidavits, again dismissed the petition, stating that a PIL could not be maintained on vague assertions without proper foundational facts, and found no infirmity in the procedures or guidelines followed based on the available material. The High Court declined to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or hand over the investigation to the CBI
Procedural History:
This case originated from a PIL (No. 86/2021) filed in the Gauhati High Court by Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder, seeking inquiry into alleged fake encounters in Assam and adherence to PUCL guidelines. The High Court dismissed the PIL on January 27, 2023, deeming it premature and based on vague assertions, though it allowed the appellant access to legally permissible documents. Prior to this, the appellant had complained to the NHRC on July 10, 2021, regarding the encounters. The AHRC had also taken suo motu cognizance on July 7, 2021 , and the NHRC transferred the appellant’s complaint to the AHRC on November 29, 2021. The appellant then filed the PIL with the High Court on December 20, 2021. The AHRC subsequently disposed of its matter on January 12, 2022, citing the High Court’s pending adjudication. The State of Assam acknowledged 171 police encounters between May 2021 and August 2022, leading to 56 deaths and 145 injuries. The High Court maintained its dismissal, finding no procedural infirmity or guideline violation. This appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against that High Court judgment.
READ ALSO : Supreme Court : From Life Imprisonment to 20 Years Young Offenders Get Relief in POCSO Case
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the case involved factual questions unsuitable for direct judicial determination or State Police investigation, given allegations against police officials themselves, necessitating an independent inquiry free from institutional bias. The Court highlighted the paramount role of Human Rights Commissions as independent watchdogs, expressing concern that the AHRC’s jurisdiction was “consciously ousted” despite its prior engagement. While acknowledging the appellant’s efforts, the Court found many procedural non-compliance allegations factually incorrect or incomplete, noting the appellant’s reliance on State-furnished data without independent corroboration. Although FIRs were registered and investigations initiated, the Court found magisterial inquiries inconsistently followed and forensic reports belatedly considered, necessitating further administrative scrutiny to ensure meticulous adherence to PUCL guidelines.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment of January 27, 2023, and the AHRC’s order of January 12, 2022, reinstating the matter for independent and expeditious inquiry by the AHRC. The AHRC is directed to issue a public notice in national English and vernacular newspapers, inviting aggrieved individuals from alleged police encounters to provide information, including contact details for free legal aid. Confidentiality of victims’ identities must be ensured through witness protection-like measures. The AHRC may initiate further detailed investigations using retired or serving police officers unconnected to the incidents, with the State of Assam providing full cooperation and resources. The Assam State Legal Services Authority must offer legal assistance to those approaching the AHRC. The appeal was allowed on these terms.
Case Details:
Case Title: Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder Versus State of Assam and Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 785 Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7929 OF 2023) Date of Judgment:May 28, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Download The Judgement Here