SC orders Assam human rights body to enquire into ‘fake' encounters
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to enquire into the allegations of "fake" encounters in the state.
A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant set aside the decision passed by the full Bench of the AHRC in January 2022 which had disposed of the issue of alleged fake encounters in the state on the pretext that the same was sub-judice before the Gauhati High Court.
'The matter is directed to be reinstated on the Board of the AHRC for necessary enquiry into the allegations independently and expeditiously, in accordance with law,' ordered the Bench, also comprising Justice N.K. Singh.
The apex court directed the AHRC to issue a public notice inviting all aggrieved individuals (victims and their family members) to come forward and furnish relevant information or evidence before the state human rights body.
'The notice shall be published in at least one national English daily and one prominent vernacular newspaper with wide circulation throughout the State of Assam. The publication of such a notice shall be carried out in a manner that is accessible and understandable to the general public, including those residing in remote and conflict-prone areas,' it ordered.
The Justice Kant-led Bench told AHRC to adopt robust measures akin to witness protection protocols to safeguard the privacy, safety and security of those participating in the process.
'We trust that the AHRC will proceed with the highest degree of sensitivity, impartiality, and diligence, thereby reinforcing public faith in the institutional mechanisms for protecting human rights,' said the top court.
Further, it ordered the Assam government to extend full cooperation to the AHRC and ensure that all logistical, financial, and administrative requirements for such an investigation are promptly and adequately met.
The apex court directed the state government to provide access to records, facilitate the availability of forensic and expert resources, and remove any institutional barriers that may hinder the functioning of AHRC.
Earlier in January 2023, the Gauhati High Court had dismissed the appellant's Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that as many as 80 fake encounters took place in Assam, between May 2021 and December 2021, and during these encounters, 28 people were killed and 48 were left injured.
The PIL had sought records of all alleged fake encounters in Assam, registration of FIRs against the erring police officials and an independent investigation against such officials in compliance with the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. State of Maharashtra.
Though, the Gauhati High Court held that the PIL was premature and the documents placed on record only made out vague assertions, it had directed that the appellant will be provided all legally-permissible documents in connection with all such cases, if so applied.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Assam man says mother detained, Supreme Court to hear plea
The Supreme Court has agreed to take up next week a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a man from Assam, who alleged that his mother has been picked up for deportation, and her whereabouts since then are not known. Initially, the Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma said it will tag the petition with a pending plea on illegal immigrants. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, however, urged the court to issue notice so that the State can reply. 'We don't know. Son doesn't know. Let them say. If she is in Bangladesh, it's another matter,' Sibal said, contending that the arrest of the petitioner's mother violated norms on arrest laid down by the SC in the D K Basu case. 'Your Lordships know she has to be produced within 24 hours. She is not produced. Picked up from the house. Directly in violation of the D K Basu judgment. SP (Superintendent of Police) goes to the house, picks her up and throws her. How can that be?' the senior counsel submitted. The petitioner, 26-year-old Iunuch (Yunus) Ali, has alleged that his mother Monowara Bewa was detained on May 24 after being called to the Dhubri police station on the pretext of recording her statement. The plea also sought a direction restraining the deportation or 'push back' of the detainee across any Indian border. Sibal said that the woman had previously filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the apex court, which is still pending, and that she had also been granted bail, yet she was being 'thrown out'. The SLP challenges the decision of the Gauhati High Court, which upheld a Foreigners Tribunal ruling declaring Bewa a foreigner – a decision that has remained under challenge before the apex court since 2017. Bewa was on bail since December 12, 2019, following a Supreme Court order in this regard. The court issued notice and fixed the hearing for early next week. The top court, however, refused to entertain a plea challenging the Assam government's move to deport Bangladeshis who have entered the country illegally. The Bench asked the petitioner, the All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), to approach the Guwahati High Court. '69 people are being deported, please go to the Guwahati High Court,' the court said. On February 4, a Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had asked the state to do the needful to deport 63 declared foreigners. The government had then said that it was awaiting confirmation of their nationality. They were subsequently confirmed to be Bangladeshi nationals. The petition alleged that using this order as an excuse, the state 'has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of Foreigners Tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies.' Citing some of the alleged deportations, the plea argued that 'these instances are not isolated, but part of an emerging pattern where individuals are detained and deported without Foreigners Tribunal declarations, nationality verification by the MEA, or even an opportunity to appeal.' 'These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court,' the ABMSU claimed.– With PTI
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Court issues norms for pregnancy termination in sexual assault cases
New Delhi: Delhi High Court recently issued guidelines for handling sexual assault victims seeking medical termination of pregnancy (MTP), emphasising that identity documents should not be required during medical examinations when the victim is brought by the investigating officer (IO) after FIR registration. A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, "Where the survivor of sexual assault (major or minor) is accompanied by the IO or produced pursuant to the direction of a Court or Child Welfare Committee (CWC), identification proof shall not be insisted upon by the hospital or doctor for conducting ultrasound or necessary diagnostic procedures. Identification by the IO will suffice." The court clarified that the IO is responsible for identifying the victim and ensuring that relevant documents and case files accompany her before the medical board. These guidelines were issued on May 29, in response to a plea seeking permission for the MTP of a 17-year-old rape survivor taken to AIIMS for examination and termination on May 25. The hospital initially refused to conduct an ultrasound because she lacked an identity card, despite police accompaniment. After a 13-day delay, an ultrasound revealed she was over 25 weeks pregnant. The medical board did not examine her immediately, citing the need for a court order since the pregnancy exceeded the statutory limit. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The bench directed govt hospitals to designate nodal officers to coordinate medico-legal aspects of such cases and provided clarity for handling MTP requests from minor sexual assault survivors. The court mandated that comprehensive medical examinations be conducted without delay for pregnant rape survivors. For pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks, a medical board must be constituted immediately without awaiting specific court orders. The bench further ruled that foetuses from MTP procedures on rape victims should be preserved for potential future DNA or forensic analysis. On May 27, on the orders of the court, a medical board examined her and found that she was only 24 weeks pregnant, and there was no need for a court order. The bench, observing that the conduct of AIIMS in this case was troubling, directed the registrar general of the HC to send a copy of the judgment to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, Delhi police commissioner, Delhi govt, and the Central Govt to ensure that the guidelines are disseminated to and complied with by all stakeholders.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
SC notice to state govt in Town Hall case
Jaipur: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the state govt in the ongoing legal battle over the ownership of the historic Town Hall in old Jaipur, while declining to stay the earlier Rajasthan High Court judgment that declared it state property. The dispute, involving properties valued at nearly Rs 2,500 crore, centres around several historic buildings in Jaipur's Walled City, including the former Vidhan Sabha (Town Hall), police headquarters, home guard general directorate and accountant office complex at Jaleb Chowk. The matter reached the apex court after the erstwhile Jaipur royal family, led by Padmini Devi, filed a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the Rajasthan High Court's single bench order of April 17, which declared these buildings as "govt property". The single bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain had issued this order while accepting four revision petitions from the state govt. The single bench order also decreed that no civil court could entertain any claims related to this case. Senior advocate Harish Salve appeared before the apex court on behalf of Padmini Devi and others and submitted that the dispute involves purely civil rights over private property that was ceded to the state govt under a covenant with the express condition that it be used only for official purposes by the govt. A division bench comprising justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Augustine George acknowledged the case as involving "an important question of law" but refused to grant any interim relief. The court has given the state govt six weeks to respond to the notices issued to chief secretary, principal secretary (general administration) and Amber development and management authority. Controversy over the Town Hall building, which housed the Rajasthan assembly until Nov 2000, intensified in 2022 when the then Congress govt under Ashok Gehlot announced plans to convert the old Vidhan Sabha building into a 'world class Rajasthan heritage museum', prompting objections from the erstwhile Jaipur royal family. Additional advocate general Shiv Mangal Sharma, representing the state govt, argued in the apex court that such disputes concerning pre-Constitution covenants were barred under Article 363 of the Constitution. He assured the court that the state would respect the pending proceedings and refrain from taking any action regarding the property during the course of proceedings.
