Reaffirming the Primacy of State Human Rights Commissions in Police-Encounter Investigations

Comprehensive Commentary on Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam & Ors. (2025 INSC 785)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam rewrites the procedural playbook for addressing allegations of “fake encounters” and extra-judicial killings by police forces. Against the backdrop of 171 reported encounters in Assam (May 2021 – Aug 2022) resulting in 56 deaths and 145 injuries, the Court was asked to decide whether the State had adhered to the mandatory 16-point protocol laid down in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (PUCL, 2014).

Crucially, the judgment restores and strengthens the role of the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC), sets aside the Gauhati High Court’s dismissal of the PIL, and crafts an accountability framework centred on autonomous human-rights institutions—with confidentiality safeguards, legal-aid linkage, and directions to the State to provide logistical support.

Parties:

• Appellant: Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder – an advocate and resident of Assam, acting in public interest.
• Respondents: State of Assam, relevant police authorities, NHRC & AHRC.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• High Court order dismissing PIL as “premature” is set aside.
• AHRC’s earlier closure of suo-motu inquiry dated 12 Jan 2022 is quashed; matter revived for fresh inquiry.
• AHRC mandated to:
  • Issue statewide public notice (English & vernacular) inviting victims/families.
  • Maintain confidentiality and adopt witness-protection style protocols.
  • Engage independent investigators (retired/serving officers of impeccable integrity, unconnected with impugned incidents).
• State of Assam to:
  • Provide full logistical, financial and administrative support.
  • Furnish all records, forensic and ballistic reports promptly.
• Assam State Legal Services Authority (ASLSA) to provide free legal aid; contact details to be included in public notice.
• Appellant allowed to assist individual victims if engaged.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 10 SCC 635 – 16-point protocol for encounter deaths; fulcrum of present case.
2. Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (Manipur fake encounters, W.P. (Crl.) 129/2012) – emphasised NHRC/SHRC role as “protector, advisor, monitor, educator”; relied upon for empowering AHRC.
3. PIL locus precedents (from S.P. Gupta through Bandhua Mukti Morcha to Subhash Kumar) – underpin liberal standing, yet highlight duty of courts to prevent “unintended miscarriage of justice”.

These cases shaped the Court’s reasoning on (i) mandatory procedural safeguards; and (ii) the institutional choice of SHRC over continued court-monitoring or police-led investigations.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Locus & PIL Dynamics
   The Court reaffirmed broad standing for public-spirited individuals but cautioned against PILs that might displace direct victim participation. It held that where rights of identifiable persons are at stake, courts must fashion processes that bring victims to the fore rather than decide solely on a third-party narrative.
2. Compliance with PUCL Guidelines
   – State submitted that FIRs, investigations, magisterial inquiries and charge-sheets existed in most cases.
   – Appellant pointed to gaps (same-station investigation, FIRs against victims, absence of forensic analysis, injuries cases untreated).
   – Court found record “inconclusive”, noting partial compliance and possibility of deviations; flagged need for “independent verification”.
   
3. Choice of Forum – AHRC over SIT/CBI
   The bench reasoned that human rights commissions are statutory, specialized, accessible, and insulated from local police hierarchy; hence best suited for fact-finding. It observed that criminal investigation by police could suffer from conflicts of interest, whereas court-monitored probes risk turning courts into investigative fora. Reviving AHRC struck a constitutional balance.
4. New Procedural Directions
   i. Public notice to widen participation.
   ii. Confidentiality akin to witness-protection to combat intimidation.
   iii. Integration with Legal Services Authorities to ensure legal aid.
   iv. State duty to provide resources, removing the oft-cited excuse of “paucity of funds/man-power”.
   

3.3 Potential Impact

• Precedential Value: First Supreme Court ruling explicitly making SHRC the default nodal agency for encounter-related fact-finding when local police are implicated, unless bias is alleged against the Commission itself.
• Standard Operating Procedure: The confidentiality directions, public-notice mechanism and linkage with Legal Services Authorities can now serve as a template for other states.
• Institutional Strengthening: Re-empowers dormant or sidelined SHRCs; sends a message that bypassing them will not be countenanced.
• Police Accountability Culture: Reinforces that encounter killings are not heroic shortcuts; procedural rigor is non-negotiable.
• Victim-Centricity: Systematises channels for victims’ voices and reduces structural fear of reprisal.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Fake/Encounter Killing: An alleged extra-judicial killing by police, often claimed to be in self-defence during an operation. Legally, every killing by state agents must pass constitutional (Art. 21) scrutiny.
• PUCL Guidelines (2014): Sixteen mandatory steps (FIR, independent investigation, magisterial inquiry, forensic tests, NHRC intimation, etc.) governing any police encounter resulting in death or grievous injury.
• Magisterial Inquiry (S. 176 CrPC): A judicial officer (Executive or Judicial Magistrate) independently probes cause of death in police custody or firing; a safeguard against cover-ups.
• Human Rights Commission: Statutory bodies under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – NHRC at national level, SHRCs at state level – empowered to investigate human-rights violations and recommend action/compensation.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Allows any person to approach higher courts for enforcement of rights where affected parties cannot do so themselves.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court, while not pronouncing on the guilt or innocence of Assam police personnel, has charted a pragmatic, victim-centric course: empower the statutory watchdog, invite the silenced to speak, protect them when they do, and compel the State to open its books. By privileging the AHRC as the investigative nucleus and wedding it to legal-aid and confidentiality protocols, the Court has given fresh teeth to the Protection of Human Rights Act and reaffirmed that constitutional promises cannot be suspended at the barrel of a gun.

Going forward, courts, governments and civil-society actors across India are likely to invoke this precedent whenever allegations of extra-judicial killings surface. It underscores that in a democracy, even the gravest security concerns must bow to due process, transparency and institutional accountability.