# Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 785
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2867 of 2025
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/arif-md-yeasin-jwadder-v-state-of-assam-and-ors-38429
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in
the State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which
has been called into question on various counts. The appellant
asserted that no meaningful or effective inquiry has been undertaken
in respect of these cases and the guidelines laid down in People's
Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. has
been flouted blatantly.
Headnotes†
Public Interest Litigation - Fake Police Encounters - Directions
by the Supreme Court - Whether the allegations made by the
appellant prima facie establish violation of the guidelines laid
down by this Court in PUCL:
Held: Upon a comprehensive examination, it emerges that several
instances cited by the appellant to demonstrate procedural
non-compliance of PUCL guidelines are factually incorrect or
incomplete - The appellant has failed to independently place
on record any cogent or verifiable material to substantiate the
allegations - After minutely scanning such data, prima facie it seems
that barring a few cases, it is difficult to infer that there has been
a procedural breakdown or the PUCL guidelines were flagrantly
violated - Further, in the absence of independent corroboration
or affidavits from affected persons, the assertions remain more or
less speculative - However, the records furnished by the State
themselves indicate that some instances may warrant further
evaluation to ascertain whether the guidelines laid down in PUCL
have been meticulously complied with, in both letter and spirit -
This Court cannot remain indifferent where the rights and dignity
of individuals, particularly in the context of alleged extra-judicial
actions, are at stake - To ensure justice to the victims and their
* Author
882
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
families, and to uphold the sanctity of the procedure established
by law, it is held that the issues raised in the instant petition merit
a fair and impartial inquiry - The Constitutional Courts must act to
preserve both legality and accountability - Therefore, the impugned
Judgment of the High Court dated 27.01.2023 is set aside - The
matter is directed to be reinstated on the board of the Assam
Human Rights Commission (AHRC) for necessary inquiry into
the allegations independently and expeditiously, in accordance
with law - The AHRC is directed to issue a public notice inviting
all individuals who claim to be aggrieved (victims and their family
members) by the alleged police encounters to come forward and
furnish relevant information or evidence before the AHRC - The
State of Assam is directed to extend full cooperation to the AHRC -
Further, the ASLSA directed to make legal assistance available to
individuals seeking support in approaching or presenting their case
before the AHRC for which its Member Secretary is also directed
to issue specific instructions to the District and Taluk level officers.
[Paras 32, 36, 38, 55]
Public Interest Litigation - Alleged cause espoused by a third
party - Locus standi:
Held: It is trite law that since the evolution of the PIL jurisdiction,
particularly post the landmark pronouncements beginning in 1984,
the doctrine of locus standi has been considerably liberalised -
Widening of the gates to justice, comes an enhanced responsibility
upon the court to ensure that this jurisdiction is not invoked in a
manner that causes more harm than good - Where the alleged
cause espoused by a third party in the form of a PIL relates to
a specific individual or a closed set of individuals-particularly
where the implications of judicial intervention may directly alter or
jeopardize the legal position of the victim or their kin-it becomes
imperative for the courts to tread with utmost circumspection -
The danger of an unintended miscarriage of justice or irreversible
prejudice being caused to an invisible and voiceless victim or their
family, merely because a well-meaning but distanced individual
has approached a Writ Court, cannot be disc

## Text

_Characters 0–39,935 of 54,728. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39935 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 881 : 2025 INSC 785
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder
v.
State of Assam and Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2867 of 2025)
28 May 2025
[Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in
the State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which
has been called into question on various counts. The appellant
asserted that no meaningful or effective inquiry has been undertaken
in respect of these cases and the guidelines laid down in People's
Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. has
been flouted blatantly.
Headnotes†
Public Interest Litigation - Fake Police Encounters - Directions
by the Supreme Court - Whether the allegations made by the
appellant prima facie establish violation of the guidelines laid
down by this Court in PUCL:
Held: Upon a comprehensive examination, it emerges that several
instances cited by the appellant to demonstrate procedural
non-compliance of PUCL guidelines are factually incorrect or
incomplete - The appellant has failed to independently place
on record any cogent or verifiable material to substantiate the
allegations - After minutely scanning such data, prima facie it seems
that barring a few cases, it is difficult to infer that there has been
a procedural breakdown or the PUCL guidelines were flagrantly
violated - Further, in the absence of independent corroboration
or affidavits from affected persons, the assertions remain more or
less speculative - However, the records furnished by the State
themselves indicate that some instances may warrant further
evaluation to ascertain whether the guidelines laid down in PUCL
have been meticulously complied with, in both letter and spirit -
This Court cannot remain indifferent where the rights and dignity
of individuals, particularly in the context of alleged extra-judicial
actions, are at stake - To ensure justice to the victims and their
* Author
882
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
families, and to uphold the sanctity of the procedure established
by law, it is held that the issues raised in the instant petition merit
a fair and impartial inquiry - The Constitutional Courts must act to
preserve both legality and accountability - Therefore, the impugned
Judgment of the High Court dated 27.01.2023 is set aside - The
matter is directed to be reinstated on the board of the Assam
Human Rights Commission (AHRC) for necessary inquiry into
the allegations independently and expeditiously, in accordance
with law - The AHRC is directed to issue a public notice inviting
all individuals who claim to be aggrieved (victims and their family
members) by the alleged police encounters to come forward and
furnish relevant information or evidence before the AHRC - The
State of Assam is directed to extend full cooperation to the AHRC -
Further, the ASLSA directed to make legal assistance available to
individuals seeking support in approaching or presenting their case
before the AHRC for which its Member Secretary is also directed
to issue specific instructions to the District and Taluk level officers.
[Paras 32, 36, 38, 55]
Public Interest Litigation - Alleged cause espoused by a third
party - Locus standi:
Held: It is trite law that since the evolution of the PIL jurisdiction,
particularly post the landmark pronouncements beginning in 1984,
the doctrine of locus standi has been considerably liberalised -
Widening of the gates to justice, comes an enhanced responsibility
upon the court to ensure that this jurisdiction is not invoked in a
manner that causes more harm than good - Where the alleged
cause espoused by a third party in the form of a PIL relates to
a specific individual or a closed set of individuals-particularly
where the implications of judicial intervention may directly alter or
jeopardize the legal position of the victim or their kin-it becomes
imperative for the courts to tread with utmost circumspection -
The danger of an unintended miscarriage of justice or irreversible
prejudice being caused to an invisible and voiceless victim or their
family, merely because a well-meaning but distanced individual
has approached a Writ Court, cannot be discounted - In such
situations, it is not sufficient for the court to proceed solely on the
averments of the person advancing the cause before the court -
Instead, it becomes obligatory for the court to independently explore
mechanisms-institutional or otherwise-that can facilitate direct
communication with the victim or their family, thereby enabling
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
883
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.
them to make an informed choice about participation or redressal
through judicial means. [Paras 19, 20, 21]
Fake Police Encounters - Context and framework of guidelines
laid down in judgment of PUCL - Discussed. [Paras 11-17]
Role of National and State Human Rights Commissions -
Discussed. [Paras 40-46]
Case Law Cited
People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
& Ors [2014] 12 SCR 54 : (2014) 10 SCC 635; Extra Judicial
Execution Victim and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition
(Crl.) No.129/2012 (decided by Supreme Court) - referred to.
List of Acts
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; AHRC (Procedure)
Regulations, 2001; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Public interest litigation; Police encounters; Encounter killing;
Inviolable guarantees of life and personal liberty; Imperatives
of law enforcement; Fake encounters; Primacy of rule of law;
Glorifying police encounters; Public heroism; Extra-judicial
killings; Use of excessive or unlawful force by public authorities;
Derogation from principles of due process; Traditional adversarial
system; Unintended miscarriage of justice; Invisible and voiceless
victim or their family; Abuse of power; Public interest jurisdiction;
Procedural safeguards; Constitutional obligations; Accountability of
law enforcement; Right to life; Article 21 of the Constitution; Nonconsideration of ballistic and forensic reports; Partial compliance;
Fairness and objectivity in investigative process; Domestic human
rights architecture; Independent watchdogs; Principle of fairness;
Witness protection protocols.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2867 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2023 of the Gauhati
High Court in PIL No. 86 of 2021
884
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Ria Yadav, Shiyas Kr.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G.,
Devajit Saikia, Advocate General (Assam), Nalin Kohli, Parthiv
Goswami, Sr. Advs., Shuvodeep Roy, Saurabh Tripathi, Deepayan
Dutta, Digvijay Dam, Krishnajyoti Deka, Anshul Malik, Ms. Shruti
Agrawal, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Siddhant
Yadav, Ms. Anasuya Choudhury, Ms. Atiga Singh, Abhinav Jha.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in the
State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which has
been called into question on various counts. At the heart of these
proceedings lie concerns that straddle the delicate boundary between
the imperatives of law enforcement and the inviolable guarantees of
life and personal liberty enshrined in our Constitution.
3.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.01.2023
(Impugned Judgment), whereby the High Court of Gauhati (High
Court) dismissed PIL No. 86/2021, inter alia seeking: (i) records of
all alleged fake encounters in the State of Assam, (ii) registration
of FIR against the erring police officials and (iii) independent
investigation against such officials in compliance with the guidelines
laid down by this Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties &
Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.1 The petition was dismissed
by the High Court, holding that the PIL was premature and the
documents placed on record only made out vague assertions.
Nevertheless, the High Court directed that the Appellant shall be
1
People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2014) 10 SCC 635.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
885
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.
provided all legally permissible documents in connection with all
such cases, if so applied.
4.
The Appellant is before us asserting that no meaningful or effective
inquiry has been undertaken in respect of these cases and the
guidelines laid down in PUCL (supra) has been flouted blatantly.
A.
Factual Background
5.
Before adverting to the issues and contentions raised by the parties,
we deem it appropriate to narrate the factual background leading to
the instant appeal briefly.
5.1. The Appellant in the Writ Petition filed before the High Court
alleged that as many as 80 fake encounters took place in the
State of Assam between May, 2021 and December, 2021.
According to him, 28 persons were killed and 48 were left
injured, during these encounters. It was further alleged that
police authorities have justified these actions on the basis that
escape attempts from the accused persons prompted them to
open fire in purported self-defence, resulting in death or injury.
5.2. Alarmed by the growing incidence of police encounters, the
Appellant firstly addressed a complaint on 10.07.2021 to the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Respondent
No. 4 herein. The Appellant beseeched the NHRC about the
multiple incidents of police encounters and requested to take
cognizance of the matter. Shortly thereafter, on 12.07.2021,
the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Respondent
No. 5 herein, also sent a suo-moto notice to the Government
of Assam and sought a report. It appears from the records
that AHRC had already taken notice of the issue pertaining to
increasing incidents of encounters on 07.07.2021, i.e., prior to
the complaint addressed by the Appellant to the NHRC.
5.3. The NHRC on 29.11.2021, transferred the Appellant's complaint
to the AHRC on the premise that the latter had already taken
note of the issue. Not long after, on 20.12.2021, the Appellant
filed the aforestated PIL Petition before the High Court, raising
the issue of the alleged fake encounters. It may be apposite to
add here that during the pendency of the proceedings before
886
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the High Court, the full bench of the AHRC on 12.01.2022,
disposed of the matter before it on the ground that the subject
matter was pending adjudication before the High Court and
Regulation 7(XII) of the AHRC (Procedure) Regulations,
2001 do not permit entertaining of complaints that are subjudice before any other Court/Tribunal.
5.4. The Appellant moved an application in the PIL proceedings
seeking copies of the FIRs registered pursuant to these police
encounters. The High Court granted him liberty to apply to the
Prosecuting Inspectors of each district in the State of Assam for
accessing the same. He consequently applied to the concerned
authorities. The Appellant appears to have maintained that there
were 101 known incidents at that point of time. However, only
the authorities of 12 districts (out of total of 30), supplied him
copies of 41 FIRs.
5.5. In the meantime, the Respondent No. 1, filed several compliance
affidavits before the High Court in the pending proceedings,
candidly acknowledging that between May 2021 and August
2022, 171 instance of police encounters had taken place wherein
56 persons were killed including 4 custodial deaths, and 145
persons were injured. As such, the scope of the Petition was
expanded, and all 171 alleged police encounters between May
2021 and August 2022 came to be scrutinised.
5.6. The High Court, however, after considering the affidavits filed by
the parties and other material on record, dismissed the petition
holding that that "unless proper foundational facts are brought
to the notice of the court, a Public Interest Litigation in such
a matter cannot be maintained merely on the basis of some
vague and unsubstantiated assertions". The High Court returned
a categorical finding that the Appellant has failed to point out
any infirmity in the procedure adopted in any of the enquiry
proceedings or any guideline laid down in PUCL (supra) based
on the materials brought on record. Given the foregoing, the
High Court also turned down the prayer to constitute a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) or hand over the investigation of these
encounters to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The High
Court ofcourse directed that the Appellant shall be provided all
legally permissible documents in connection with all such cases.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
887
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.
B.
Contentions on behalf of the Appellant
6.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Appellant, strongly
contended that the High Court has fell in error in overlooking the fact
that 56 persons have lost their lives and 145 have been grievously
injured in police encounters. According to him, the guidelines
laid down in PUCL (supra) were not adhered to in any of these
incidents.
7.
In support of his contentions, Mr. Bhushan has advanced the following
submissions:
a)
At the outset, any imputation on the bona fides of the Appellant
is unfounded. The Appellant is a permanent resident of the State
of Assam and being a practicing advocate, espouses the cause
of transparency and accountability of public institutions. The
majority of the victims and/or their families are either unaware
of their rights or are scared to approach the police officials
seeking further investigation.
b)
The FIRs pertaining to the incidents of police encounters have
been registered against the victims i.e., the persons killed or
injured and not against the concerned police officials. The
registration of FIRs is in violation of the guidelines laid down
by this Court in Para 31.2 of the judgment in PUCL (supra)
which prescribes that in the event of an encounter leading
to death, an FIR shall be registered and forwarded to the
jurisdictional court under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC).
c)
The investigation into these incidents of police encounters has
not been conducted in an independent manner. In this regard,
Para 31.3 of the judgment in PUCL (supra) mandates that an
independent investigation into the incident shall be conducted
by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) or police team of
another police station under the supervision of a senior officer.
However, the investigation into these police encounters was
conducted by officers from the same police station.
d)
Such so-called investigation was merely an eye wash and
nothing more than a superficial exercise, intended to create an
illusion of accountability. It was riddled with a glaring conflict
of interest, and not only did it compromise the integrity of the
888
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
process but also provided the officers involved with a convenient
opportunity to shield themselves from scrutiny and evade any
real consequences for their misconduct.
e)
A perusal of the 41 FIRs supplied to the Appellant, 12 of which
were also placed on record before the High Court, clearly
indicates a somewhat similar modus operandi adopted by the
police officials who have justified the killings and injury caused
to people on the pretext that they were trying to flee. This gives
rise to the apprehension that the police officials have undertaken
these encounters in a premeditated manner and not in self
defence as proclaimed by them.
f)
The guidelines laid down by this Court in PUCL (supra)
mandates that the concerned police official must surrender their
weapon for forensic/ballistic analysis. In breach of the prescribed
guidelines, the Magisterial inquiries in several incidents remain
silent on this aspect, offering no indication as to whether any
ballistic or forensic examinations were ever conducted. The
Appellant has illustratively pointed out the inquiry reports in the
cases of deaths of Dimasa National Liberation Army (DNLA)
cadres, suspects of the United People's Revolutionary Front,
Kanwaldeep Singh Sindhu, Sorangi China, and Bubu Konwar
which do not refer to the forensic analysis.
g)
Regardless of the clear mandate laid down in PUCL (supra),
which expressly requires a Magisterial inquiry or an independent
investigation even in cases involving grievous injuries, this
crucial procedural safeguard has been disregarded. In the
majority of such instances, no such inquiry or investigation
has been initiated, reflecting a serious departure from the
established legal framework intended to ensure transparency
and accountability.
h)
The State of Assam has failed to indicate the present status of
investigation in all the 171 cases leading to death or grievous
injury. The table tendered before this Court on 25.02.2025
indicates that charge sheet has been filed in 5 out of the 41
cases leading to death. However, the charge sheets have not
been placed on record, and it is feared that they may be against
the victims, not the concerned police personnel.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
889
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.
C.
Contentions on behalf of the Respondent(s)
8.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, along with Mr.
Devajit Saikia, Advocate General and Mr. Nalin Kohli, Additional
Advocate General for the State of Assam, appearing for Respondent
Nos. 1-3 have vehemently asserted that the High Court has rightly
dismissed the PIL as the Appellant failed to establish or point out
any lacunae in the investigation conducted into the instances of
police encounters.
9.
Their submissions may be summarised as follows:
a)
The issues raised in the instant petition are vague, baseless
and whimsical, and the High Court rightly dismissed the same
as being premature. As per the reports submitted by the
Superintendent of Police of all the districts, the guidelines issued
by this Court in PUCL (supra) have been diligently observed
in all death cases.
b)
In all instances where police encounters have resulted in death,
separate FIRs have been lodged; independent investigations
have been conducted; and Magisterial inquiries have also been
ordered. In its affidavit dated 29.09.2022, the State of Assam
has categorically stated that 171 cases have been registered
and that investigations are currently underway.
c)
The reliance placed by the Appellant on Para 31.3 of the
judgment in PUCL (supra) to suggest that 'an independent
investigation into the incident shall be conducted by the CID
or police team of another police station' in every incident, is
completely misplaced and incorrect. The judgment does not
contemplate the registration of FIR at a different police station.
The Appellant's contention in this regard is thoroughly untenable
as the FIR has to be registered by the police station having
jurisdiction over the matter. The Appellant's claim in this regard
would make the investigation unnecessarily onerous and timeconsuming. Similarly, the need for constituting an independent
investigating agency would arise only when a prima facie case
has been made out that investigation is not being carried out in
accordance with the due procedure prescribed by law.
d)
Fair and impartial magisterial inquiries have been conducted in
all incidents where death has been caused in police encounters.
890
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
More importantly, all these inquiries have been undertaken
strictly per the guidelines in PUCL (supra). The particulars of
the stage of investigation or conduct of magisterial inquiry in all
171 cases were placed before the High Court vide the affidavit
dated 29.09.2022.
e)
Insofar as the reference to forensic/ballistic reports is concerned,
the Appellant has sought to present unsubstantiaed claims
without being supported by any cogent facts. He has selectively
read the reports and deliberately concealed the fact that
ballistic examination reports and forensic reports were yet to
be received in some cases, and in others, were received later.
Those reports were duly considered before filing of the charge
sheet or final report.
f)
The Appellant's contention that PUCL (supra) applies even in
cases of grievous injury is totally erroneous. The judgment only
provides that the guidelines will also apply to grievous injury
cases in police encounters, as far as possible. The phrase 'as
far as possible' shows that compliance and adherence to the
guidelines need not be made in a strict sense.
g)
The allegation of the Appellant that the State of Assam has
failed to indicate the present status of the investigation is also
entirely misplaced. It is noteworthy that the State of Assam,
in its counter-affidavit dated 29.04.2024, has stated that out
of a total of 171 cases, charge sheets have been filed in 125
cases, forwarding reports were submitted in 23 cases, and
that the remaining 23 cases were still pending investigation.
The competent police officials have investigated all the cases
under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police of the
concerned districts.
D.
Issues for Consideration
10. Having regard to the rival submissions, we find that the following
issues arise for our consideration:
a)
Whether the allegations made by the Appellant prima facie
establish violation of the guidelines laid down by this Court in
PUCL (supra) ?
b)
If so, what are the remedial measures?
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
891
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.
E.
Analysis
E.1. Understanding the Context and Framework of the Guidelines
laid down in PUCL (supra)
11. The instant controversy, in its core, revolves around the alleged
infraction of the PUCL (supra) guidelines. We therefore deem it
appropriate to firstly advert to the context, intent, and purport of
those guidelines.
12. The PUCL case arose against the backdrop of allegations of fake or
staged police encounters in the State of Maharashtra and other parts
of the country, where individuals purported to be criminals were killed
by the police. The petitioner therein, PUCL, sought court-monitored
guidelines to curb the misuse of power and ensure accountability
and transparency in such encounters, in light of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
13. This Court recognised the gravity of the issue, noting that fake
encounters are extra-judicial killings and must be subject to strict
legal scrutiny. While issuing sixteen (16) mandatory guidelines, this
Court held that any encounter killing must be investigated fairly and
independently, and cannot be treated as justified merely on the claim
of self-defence by the Police.
14. To examine the contention at hand, we deem it appropriate to extract
a few guidelines that have been contested before us:
"31.1. Whenever the Police is in receipt of any intelligence
or tip-off regarding criminal movements or activities
pertaining to the Commission of grave criminal offence,
it shall be reduced into writing in some form (preferably
into case diary) or in some electronic form. Such recording
need not reveal details of the suspect or the location to
which the party is headed. If such intelligence or tip-off
is received by a higher authority, the same may be noted
in some form without revealing details of the suspect or
the location.
31.2. If pursuant to the tip-off or receipt of any intelligence,
as above, encounter takes place and firearm is used
by the police party and as a result of that, death
892
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
occurs, an FIR to that effect shall be registered
and the same shall be forwarded to the court under
Section 157 of the Code without any delay. While
forwarding the report under Section 157 of the Code,
the procedure prescribed under Section 158 of the Code
shall be followed.
31.3. An independent investigation into the incident/
encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police
team of another police station under the supervision
of a senior officer (at least a level above the head of
the police party engaged in the encounter). The team
conducting inquiry/investigation shall, at a minimum,
seek...
31.4. A Magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the
Code must invariably be held in all cases of death
which occur in the course of police firing and a
report thereof must be sent to Judicial Magistrate having
jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code.
31.5. The involvement of NHRC is not necessary unless
there is serious doubt about independent and impartial
investigation. However, the information of the incident
without any delay must be sent to NHRC or the State
Human Rights Commission, as the case may be.
*****
31.7. It should be ensured that there is no delay in
sending FIR, diary entries, panchnamas, sketch, etc., to
the concerned Court.
31.8. After full investigation into the incident, the report
should be sent to the competent court under Section
173 of the Code. The trial, pursuant to the chargesheet
submitted by the Investigating Officer, must be concluded
expeditiously.
31.9. In the event of death, the next of kin of the alleged
criminal/victim must be informed at the earliest.
*****
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
893
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.
31.13. The police officer(s) concerned must surrender his/
her weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, including
any other material, as required by the investigating team,
subject to the rights under Article 20 of the Constitution.
*****
31.16. If the family of the victim finds that the above
procedure has not been followed or there exists a
pattern of abuse or lack of independent investigation
or impartiality by any of the functionaries as above
mentioned, it may make a complaint to the Sessions
Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place of
incident. Upon such complaint being made, the concerned
Sessions Judge shall look into the merits of the complaint
and address the grievances raised therein.
32. The above guidelines will also be applicable to
grievous injury cases in police encounter, as far as
possible."
15. It may be seen that the guidelines provide for the registration of FIR,
independent investigation, Magisterial inquiry, involvement of forensic
science, informing the next of kin, compensation and information to
the NHRC and State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), among
others. These guidelines, in a way, reaffirm the primacy of the Rule
of Law as the bedrock of our constitutional democracy. This Court
authoritatively held that no individual or institution, including the
Police or law enforcement agencies, is above the law. It cautioned
against the emerging culture of glorifying police encounters as
indicators of effective policing or public heroism and observed that
such glorification distorts the role of the Police in a constitutional
democracy and fosters a climate of impunity, where extra-judicial
methods are valorised over legal processes.
16. It needs no emphasis that, the use of excessive or unlawful force
by public authorities, irrespective of the nature of the offence or the
antecedents of the victim, cannot be condoned or legitimised on any
pretext. Any derogation from the principles of due process, even in
the name of expediency or public safety, erodes the foundation of
a democratic and civilised society.
894
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
17. Having impressed upon the befitting relevance of the PUCL (supra)
principles and having delineated the dictum governing the present
controversy, the stage is now set to examine the rival contentions
advanced by the parties.
E.2.Whether the allegations made by the Appellant prima facie
establish violation of the guidelines laid down by this Court in
PUCL (supra) ?
E.2.1. Locus Standi of the Appellant
18. At the very outset, we deem it appropriate to address the objection
raised on behalf of the Respondent questioning the locus of the
Appellant to maintain the present proceedings. The Appellant
approached the High Court purportedly on the ground that the
victims and their families are either unaware of their legal rights or
too intimidated to approach the appropriate authorities. While such
apprehensions may not be entirely unfounded, the question that
arises is whether the Appellant, as a third party, can invoke the Writ
Jurisdiction of the High Court in a matter that appears to impact
specific individuals more directly than the public at large.
19. It is trite law that since the evolution of the PIL jurisdiction, particularly
post the landmark pronouncements beginning in 1984, the doctrine of
locus standi has been considerably liberalised. The transformation of
the traditional adversarial system into a more participatory model, has
allowed conscientious citizens to knock at the doors of Constitutional
Courts in matters involving gross violations of Fundamental Rights,
environmental degradation, systemic corruption, or executive apathy
affecting large segments of society.
20. However, with the widening of the gates to justice, comes
an enhanced responsibility upon the court to ensure that this
jurisdiction is not invoked in a manner that causes more harm
than good. Where the alleged cause espoused by a third party in
the form of a PIL relates to a specific individual or a closed set of
individuals - particularly where the implications of judicial intervention
may directly alter or jeopardize the legal position of the victim or
their kin - it becomes imperative for the courts to tread with utmost
circumspection.
21. The danger of an unintended miscarriage of justice or irreversible
prejudice being caused to an invisible and voiceless victim or their
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
895
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.
family, merely because a well-meaning but distanced individual has
approached a Writ Court, cannot be discounted. In such situations,
it is not sufficient for the court to proceed solely on the averments of
the person advancing the cause before the court. Instead, it becomes
obligatory for the court to independently explore mechanisms -
institutional or otherwise - that can facilitate direct communication
with the victim or their family, thereby enabling them to make an
informed choice about participation or redressal through judicial
means.
22. Adverting the facts of this case, we deem it appropriate to acknowledge
the role played by the Appellant in bringing to the court's attention a
matter that raises grave and disquieting concerns. The assertion that
several victims and their families are either helpless to seek legal
recourse or too intimidated to approach the authorities need not be
summarily disregarded. It is not uncommon in situations involving
alleged abuse of power by State actors for the affected individuals
to remain silent, either out of fear or lack of resources. The Appellant
has, through sustained efforts, placed before this Court as many as
171 individual instances, each warranting objective scrutiny.
23. It must, however, be borne in mind that the mere compilation or
aggregation of cases does not, by itself, call for omnibus judicial
directions. The allegations that some of these incidents may
involve fake encounters are indeed serious and, if proven, would
amount to a grave violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution. It is however equally possible that upon a fair, impartial,
and independent investigation, some of these cases may turn out
to be necessary and legally justified. This distinction is critical. The
issuance of broad-brush directives without individual scrutiny could
result in a miscarriage of justice, either by shielding the guilty or by
stigmatizing legitimate action by public servants discharging their
duty under challenging circumstances.
24. It is in this delicate constitutional balance that the court must situate
its response. The invocation of public interest jurisdiction, cannot
become a substitute for procedural safeguards and the right of
individual victims or their families to be heard. The risk of issuing
general directions in the absence of independent assessment is not
merely procedural - it strikes at the very heart of the principles of
fairness and due process that underpin our judicial system. The
896
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
jurisprudence developed by this Court over the decades reinforces the
position that justice must be individualized where the consequences
are personal and irreversible.
25. It therefore becomes incumbent upon this Court to devise a calibrated
mechanism whereby each of the alleged incidents is examined
independently, and where victims or their families are accorded a
real and meaningful opportunity to participate in the process. Their
voices must be heard not as a matter of courtesy, but as a matter of
right. The function of a Constitutional Court in such circumstances
is not merely adjudicatory, but protective - to safeguard the rule
of law, and to ensure that the promise of justice does not remain
illusory for those who are most vulnerable.
E.2.2. Obligation of this Court to safeguard Constitutional
obligations
26. In order to consider the veracity of the allegations regarding the
violation of the guidelines enumerated in PUCL (supra), we have
already set out in detail the contentions advanced by the parties in
the preceding sections of this judgment. The contentions raised by
the Appellant are rooted in constitutional concerns relating to the
right to life and the accountability of law enforcement, particularly in
light of the binding nature of the procedural safeguards mandated
by this Court.
27. According to the Appellant, there has been a profound and systemic
failure in adhering to the cited guidelines, in the aftermath of a
series of police encounters in the State of Assam. The Appellant
alleges that in several cases, no FIR has been registered against the
concerned police officials, or the provisions invoked in the FIR are
not appropriate for cases of police encounters. It was also argued
that in some instances, the FIR has been registered against the
victims of these police encounters and not the erring police officials.
According to the Appellant, such inappropriate registration of FIRs
directly contravenes this Court's mandate, which unequivocally
requires that every case of encounter resulting in death or grievous
injury must be brought under the ambit of criminal law through the
registration of a case.
28. In addition, the Appellant has pointed to the absence of an independent
investigation by the CID or a police team from another police station,
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
897
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.
which is a sine qua non under the PUCL (supra) guidelines to ensure
objectivity and prevent conflict of interest. The Appellant has further
alleged non-compliance with the requirement of a magisterial inquiry
in cases involving grievous injuries or deaths, as well as the absence
of any reference to ballistic and forensic reports.
29. These allegations have however been vehemently refuted by the
Respondents, who submitted that in all instances where police
encounters have led to death, separate FIRs have been lodged, an
independent investigation conducted and a Magisterial Inquiry has
also been ordered. The State, in its counter-affidavit has stated that
out of a total of 171 cases, a charge sheet has been filed in 125
cases, a forwarding report submitted in 23 cases, and the remaining
23 cases were still under investigation. The Respondents also
maintain that the requirement of involving an independent agency,
such as the CID or a team from another police station, must be
assessed contextually, and not applied as a blanket directive. Such
recourse becomes necessary only where credible allegations are
raised suggesting bias, partiality, or procedural deviation on the part
of the local investigating authorities.
30. In essence, the thrust of the argument is that the guidelines in PUCL
(supra) are to be interpreted as laying down general procedural
safeguards to ensure fairness and transparency, but not as creating
a rigid or mechanical requirement that displaces the jurisdiction of
the local Police in every encounter case, unless justified by the facts
of the case.
31. Insofar as the allegation relating to the non-consideration of ballistic
and forensic reports is concerned, the Respondents have submitted
that the Appellant, in undue haste, has painted an incomplete and
premature portrait of the investigative process. The Respondents
claim that the concerned forensic and ballistic reports were received
and duly taken into account by the investigating authorities, albeit at
a later stage in the proceedings. Mere timing of such consideration
does not ipso facto establish procedural impropriety, particularly when
the reports form part of the final investigative record.
32. Upon a comprehensive examination, it emerges that several instances
cited by the Appellant to demonstrate procedural non-compliance
of PUCL (supra) guidelines are factually incorrect or incomplete.
898
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
The Appellant has failed to independently place on record any
cogent or verifiable material to substantiate the allegations. He has
merely relied upon the data furnished by the State itself to highlight
purported lapses. After minutely scanning such data, prima facie
it seems that barring a few cases, it is difficult to infer that there
has been a procedural breakdown or the PUCL (supra) guidelines
were flagrantly violated. Further, in the absence of independent
corroboration or affidavits from affected persons, the assertions
remain more or less speculative.
33. The record further suggests that FIRs have been registered in all the
cases brought to our notice. The State of Assam has also submitted
a status report detailing each FIR and the respective stage of
investigation or prosecution. These documents prima facie belie the
claim of inaction and do establish that, at least at the foundational
level, the criminal process was duly initiated.
34. As regards the requirement of magisterial inquiry under the framework
prescribed by PUCL (supra), the State has demonstrated that such
inquiries were conducted in several cases. However, the record
remains inconclusive as to whether this procedural safeguard was
uniformly followed in all encounter-related incidents, as is mandatorily
required in terms of the referenced judgment. While partial compliance
is visible, the absence of a clear and consistent procedural trail in
some cases calls for closer administrative scrutiny by an independent
authority to ensure uniform adherence.
35. On the aspect of forensic and ballistic analysis, the State of
Assam has acknowledged that relevant reports were obtained and
considered in the course of the investigation. Nonetheless, it is also
apparent that such consideration occurred belatedly. While delayed
compliance cannot be equated with total omission, the procedural
sanctity envisaged by this Court necessitates that such reports be
requisitioned and evaluated at the earliest possible stage to ensure
fairness and objectivity in the investigative process.
36. Be that as it may, the records furnished by the State themselves
indicate that some instances may warrant further evaluation to
ascertain whether the guidelines laid down in PUCL (supra) have
been meticulously complied with, in both letter and spirit. The gravity
of the issues involved, namely, implicating the Fundamental Rights
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
899
Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.
under Article 21 requires that procedural safeguards are not merely
observed in form, but are meaningfully enforced to inspire public
confidence in the Rule of Law.
37. We may hasten to clarify that the foregoing observation should not be
construed as casting any aspersions on the investigation carried out
by the State of Assam.