Apex court's wake-up call: Time to end the culture of extra-judicial killings in Assam

The pattern of detenus being increasingly shot at and either killed or injured by the Assam police has become too blatant to be ignored. Such extra-judicial killings transgress all canons of justice and the rule of law by degrading the fundamental tenet that an accused is deemed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. Unfortunately, our State judicial authorities have not taken due cognizance of such a serious issue, with even the Gauhati High Court leaving it hanging!

The matter had come up before the Supreme Court in April 2023, and, although the court described the matter as "very serious," no follow-up rectification directives were given and such extrajudicial shootings continue to take place. However, now the apex court has been prodded into action not merely by a petition by an advocate, but also by the sheer weight of the evidence.

According to the Assam government's own affidavit placed before the apex court, between May 2021 and August 2022, 171 instances of police encounters had taken place wherein 56 persons were killed, including 4 custodial deaths, and 145 persons were injured. Basing itself on this as well as data presented by the petitioner, the Supreme Court has now directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to inquire into the allegations of fake encounters in the State "independently" and "expeditiously" and "advancing the matter to a logical conclusion."

The apex court directed the AHRC to issue a public notice inviting all individuals who claim to be aggrieved by the alleged police encounters to come forward and furnish information or evidence before it, and asked the human rights body to conduct an investigation if it deems fit, while, if need be, engaging the services of retired or serving police officers of integrity and unblemished records for this purpose.

It also directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority to make legal assistance available to individuals seeking support in approaching or presenting their case before the AHRC. It may be noted that the petitioner had filed a plea before the NHRC, which had referred it to the AHRC, but the latter did not take cognizance citing that the matter was being heard by the High Court.

But now the apex court's directives will force it to take action given that the former also asserted "the allegation that some of these incidents may involve fake encounters is indeed serious and, if proven, would amount to a violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It is also equally possible that upon a fair, impartial and independent investigation, some of these cases might turn out to be necessary and legally justified." It is hoped that the latest directives of the apex court will facilitate justice dispensation to proven victims and punishment for perpetrators revealed to be so.