SC orders AHRC probe into Assam police encounters, says ‘procedural safeguards must be meaningful’

New Delhi: In a major intervention on concerns over human rights violations, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to independently investigate police encounter cases in the state where due procedures may not have been followed between May 2021 and August 2022.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the Assam government’s own records suggested that some cases warrant scrutiny to assess compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2014 PUCL vs State of Maharashtra judgment. That landmark ruling laid out 16 mandatory guidelines for encounter cases, including FIR registration, independent investigation, magisterial inquiry, forensic involvement, informing next of kin, and notifying human rights bodies.

“The gravity of the issues involved… requires that procedural safeguards are not merely observed in form, but are meaningfully enforced,” the bench stated, underscoring the importance of upholding Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.

The top court also set aside a 2022 decision by the full bench of the AHRC that had disposed of the issue on the grounds that the matter was sub judice in the High Court. The Supreme Court has now directed the AHRC to reopen the case and conduct a prompt and independent inquiry in accordance with the law.

While noting that no conclusive evidence of institutional bias or bad faith had been established, the court stressed the need for an impartial body to evaluate the cases thoroughly. “Given the constitutional importance… it is imperative… that an impartial and independent institution undertakes a careful verification,” the court said.

The AHRC has been instructed to publish public notices in both English and vernacular newspapers inviting victims or their families to provide information. Legal aid contacts must be included in the notices to ensure accessibility.

To ensure confidentiality and protection of participants, the court asked the AHRC to adopt measures akin to witness protection protocols. If deeper investigation is found necessary, the Commission may engage retired or serving police officers with “impeccable integrity,” provided they are unconnected to the cases.

The court has also directed the Assam government to provide full cooperation by sharing records, enabling forensic and expert support, and removing any barriers that may obstruct the Commission’s work.

While the petitioner could not furnish independent proof of procedural violations and relied solely on the state’s own data, the court acknowledged that some cases—though limited—may involve genuine lapses. Out of 171 incidents cited by the state, 56 resulted in deaths (including four in custody) and 145 injuries.

By reopening the probe, the Supreme Court seeks to reinforce transparency and public trust in institutional mechanisms protecting human rights in India.

(With PTI inputs)