Controversy Surrounds Police Encounters in Assam Amid Calls for Justice

Ongoing Debate Over Police Encounters

For the past five years, Assam's history of police encounters has been scrutinized through a Supreme Court petition, ongoing investigations, and a growing public debate, especially following two shootings on June 1 that reignited discussions.

The more critical incident involved Rose Ali, the main suspect in the murder of All Assam Students' Union (AASU) member Madhurjya Barman, who was shot dead in Nalbari.

According to Nalbari Senior Superintendent of Police Bibekananda Das, Ali allegedly seized a police firearm and fired at officers while attempting to escape, prompting police to return fire.

Das remarked to reporters outside the hospital where Ali's body was taken, stating, "Such criminals are rare in today's time."

Hours earlier, another shooting occurred when Akkas Ali, 35, accused of raping a 10-year-old girl, was shot in the leg after allegedly attacking police and trying to flee custody near Chhaygaon in Kamrup district.

Assam Police asserts that these encounters are conducted legally. IGP (Law and Order) Akhilesh Kumar Singh stated, "Assam Police operates within the law."

Officials emphasized that every fatal encounter is followed by a mandatory inquiry led by authorities from a different district to ensure fairness.

Both incidents align with a pattern cited by Assam Police over the last four years, where the accused were shot during attempts to escape after allegedly seizing police weapons.

Legal Scrutiny and Public Outcry

A petition, a directive, a wait

This pattern has caught the attention of the legal system. In December 2021, advocate Arif Jwadder filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Gauhati High Court, claiming over 80 fake encounters occurred between May 2021 and August 2022.

During the hearings, the Assam government reported that 171 police encounters had taken place during that time, resulting in 56 deaths, including four custodial fatalities, and 145 injuries.

The court dismissed the PIL in January 2023, deeming it premature and finding the evidence presented to be vague.

Jwadder subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court in April 2023, seeking an independent investigation by external agencies like the CBI or a Special Investigation Team, arguing that the incidents required scrutiny beyond internal police reviews.

The Supreme Court has expressed concern multiple times, with the bench noting that the deaths of accused individuals "just like that" undermines the rule of law.

A significant development occurred on May 28, 2025, when a bench led by Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh instructed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to conduct a thorough and prompt inquiry into the allegations.

However, according to Jwadder, progress has been slow. "The investigation hasn't yet started. I have contacted the Human Rights Commission multiple times and met with officials last year. They assured me that action would be taken, but nothing has happened so far," he stated.

He argued that the lack of independent oversight has fostered a sense of impunity among police personnel.

"When encounters proceed without scrutiny, police officers may feel they can act without accountability," he claimed.

Despite this, the AHRC insists that the inquiry is ongoing, with delays attributed to the complexity of the investigation rather than inactivity.

The Commission has been gathering records from various districts in Assam, compiling information about victims, their families, and police involved in encounter cases.

"We must examine documentary evidence and hear from all parties before reaching any conclusions," an official stated, requesting anonymity. Nearly a year later, concerns about the inquiry's pace persist.

Public Sentiment and Legal Principles

Public anger & rule of law

The incidents in Nalbari and Chhaygaon have sparked significant public outrage. In Nalbari, AASU and its affiliates organized protests demanding severe punishment for the accused. In Chhaygaon, some segments of the community called for police encounters.

AASU protesting the murder of young member Madhurjya Barman in Nalbari (Photo: AT)

Advocate Mousumi Chatterjee emphasized that public support for encounters cannot override constitutional protections.

"Public opinion cannot supersede the rule of law. Neither law enforcement nor the public is above the law. The judiciary has established guidelines that must be adhered to," she remarked, referencing the landmark People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs State of Maharashtra ruling, which set forth protocols for investigating encounter killings.

A former judge of the Gauhati High Court, who wished to remain anonymous, noted that this debate highlights a broader conflict between the public's desire for quick justice and the necessity of due process.

He pointed out that support for encounters has increased due to frustrations with the slow pace of criminal trials. "The prolonged duration of criminal trials often frustrates victims and their families, who are eager for swift justice," he explained.

However, he firmly warned against using encounters as a replacement for the legal process. "It would be a perilous trend if suspects and accused individuals are killed or harmed in the name of encounters. It is also alarming that there is widespread support for such encounters, often celebrated in the media," he cautioned.

Drawing parallels with the prosecution of Ajmal Kasab after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, he argued that even those accused of the most serious crimes deserve due process.

He further noted that encounter-related cases have frequently reached the Supreme Court, including those from Assam and Uttar Pradesh, and determining the legitimacy of an encounter is often challenging due to the one-sided narratives presented.

"While laws and court rulings are crucial, lasting accountability ultimately hinges on adherence to both the rule of law and moral responsibility," he concluded.

Four years after the issue was first raised in court, the recent shootings suggest that neither the law nor its institutions have provided a clear resolution. Until the AHRC inquiry concludes and is perceived as credible, the questions surrounding these encounters will only intensify.