Supreme Court Directs State Human Rights Commission to Probe Alleged Police Encounters in Assam

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard an appeal against the Gauhati High Court judgment that had dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the authenticity of multiple police encounters in Assam and seeking independent probes and FIRs against erring officers.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 27.01.2023 and the Assam Human Rights Commission's (AHRC) earlier disposal, and directed the AHRC to reinstate and independently inquire into the alleged encounters. The Court observed the matter implicated fundamental rights and the need for "fair and impartial inquiry." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, even if the Appellant has not been able to conclusively demonstrate the allegations of illegality or procedural violation on the part of the Respondents, 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 families, and to uphold the sanctity of the procedure established by law, we hold that the issues raised in the instant petition merit a fair and impartial inquiry.” The Court reiterated the PUCL guidelines, noting that "An independent investigation into the incident/encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police team of another police station" and that "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."

Background The appellant, Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder, filed a PIL alleging a series of alleged fake encounters in Assam between May 2021 and August 2022. The State had eventually acknowledged 171 encounters in that period, recording 56 deaths (including four custodial deaths) and 145 injuries. The appellant initially complained to the NHRC and sought records and independent investigations under the PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra) guidelines; the AHRC had taken suo motu notice but later disposed of the matter as sub‑judice. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the PIL as premature and found the appellant’s claims "vague and unsubstantiated," although it granted liberty to apply for available documents.

On appeal, the petitioner contended that FIRs were often registered only against victims, independent investigations had not been conducted in accordance with PUCL, magisterial inquiries and forensic/ballistic analyses were frequently absent or delayed, and that a pattern of similar modus operandi suggested premeditation. The State, represented before this Court, maintained that FIRs, magisterial inquiries and investigations had been initiated, that charge sheets had been filed in many cases, and that compliance with PUCL must be applied contextually rather than mechanically.

The Supreme Court analysed the PUCL framework, the role of NHRC/SHRC under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and the doctrine of public interest litigation. Finding that the questions raised required fact-finding beyond its summary jurisdiction and that an independent forum should examine procedural compliance, the Court set aside the AHRC bench order of 12.01.2022 and directed the AHRC to re-open inquiries. The AHRC was instructed to publish a public notice in one national English daily and one prominent vernacular newspaper inviting victims and families to come forward, to ensure confidentiality and witness‑protection measures, and to permit engagement of retired or serving officers of unimpeachable integrity for detailed probes if required. The Court directed full cooperation from the State of Assam and mandated that the Assam State Legal Services Authority provide legal aid; the appellant, as an advocate, was permitted to represent victims who engaged him.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 785 Case Title: Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Prashant Bhushan, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India; Devajit Saikia, Advocate General for the State of Assam; Nalin Kohli, Additional Advocate General