Supreme Court Orders Inquiry into Alleged Fake Encounters in Assam

Supreme Court Directs AHRC to Investigate Allegations

New Delhi: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court mandated the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to investigate claims of 'fake' encounters occurring in the state.

A Bench led by Justice Surya Kant overturned a previous ruling from the AHRC's full Bench in January 2022, which had dismissed the allegations on the grounds that the matter was already under consideration by the Gauhati High Court.

The court instructed that the case be reinstated on the AHRC's agenda for a thorough and independent inquiry into the allegations, ensuring adherence to legal protocols.

The Supreme Court also directed the AHRC to publish a public notice encouraging victims and their families to come forward with any pertinent information or evidence.

This notice is to be disseminated in at least one major English-language daily and a widely circulated vernacular newspaper in Assam, ensuring accessibility for all, including those in remote or conflict-affected areas.

The Bench emphasized the need for the AHRC to implement strong protective measures similar to witness protection protocols to ensure the safety and privacy of participants in the inquiry.

The court expressed confidence that the AHRC would handle the investigation with utmost sensitivity, impartiality, and thoroughness, thereby enhancing public trust in human rights protection mechanisms.

Additionally, the Supreme Court instructed the Assam government to fully support the AHRC by meeting all logistical, financial, and administrative needs for the investigation.

The state is required to provide access to necessary records, facilitate forensic and expert resources, and eliminate any institutional obstacles that could impede the AHRC's work.

Previously, in January 2023, the Gauhati High Court had dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) claiming that 80 fake encounters occurred in Assam between May and December 2021, resulting in 28 fatalities and 48 injuries.

The PIL sought documentation of all alleged encounters, the filing of FIRs against involved police officers, and an independent investigation as per the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. State of Maharashtra.

Although the Gauhati High Court deemed the PIL premature and the evidence presented as vague, it ordered that the appellant be granted access to all legally permissible documents related to these cases upon request.