Holding

The Supreme Court held that while the appellant failed to prove widespread prima facie violations of the PUCL guidelines, the allegations merit an independent inquiry by the Assam Human Rights Commission, and therefore set aside the High Court order.

Summary

The appellant, a lawyer, filed a public interest litigation alleging that up to 171 police encounters in Assam between 2021 and 2022 were fake and that the State had violated the procedural safeguards laid down in the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) guidelines. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition as premature and vague, directing the appellant to obtain permissible documents. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant’s allegations prima facie established a breach of the PUCL guidelines and considered the appropriate remedial measures, while also addressing the appellant’s locus standi. The Court found that the appellant had not produced independent evidence of systematic violations, but noted that some instances required further scrutiny. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and ordered the matter to be reinstated before the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) for an independent inquiry, with specific directions for public notice, victim protection, and state cooperation. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the allegations made by the appellant prima facie establish violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) case
If such violations are established, what remedial measures should be ordered

Legislation cited

Assam Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001s. Regulation 7(XII)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 157, s. Section 158, s. Section 173, s. Section 176, s. Section 190
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993s. Section 2(d)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in the State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which has been called into question on various counts. The appellant asserted that no meaningful or effective inquiry has been undertaken in respect the guidelines laid down in People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. has been flouted blatantly. Headnotes† Public Interest Litigation – Fake Police Encounters – Directions by the Supreme Court – Whether the allegations made

Subjects

Public interest litigationPolice encountersEncounter killingRight to lifeArticle 21Human rights commissionsPUCL guidelinesExtra-judicial killingsProcedural safeguardsAccountability of law enforcementForensic analysisMagisterial inquiryLegal aid

Judgment

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 881 : 2025 INSC 785

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder
v.
State of Assam and Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2867 of 2025)
28 May 2025
[Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in
the State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which
has been called into question on various counts. The appellant
asserted that no meaningful or effective inquiry has been undertaken
in respect of these cases and the guidelines laid down in People’s
Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. has
been flouted blatantly.

Headnotes†
Public Interest Litigation – Fake Police Encounters – Directions
by the Supreme Court – Whether the allegations made by the
appellant prima facie establish violation of the guidelines laid
down by this Court in PUCL:
Held: Upon a comprehensive examination, it emerges that several
instances cited by the appellant to demonstrate procedural
non-compliance of PUCL guidelines are factually incorrect or
incomplete – The appellant has failed to independently place
on record any cogent or verifiable material to substantiate the
allegations – After minutely scanning such data, prima facie it seems
that barring a few cases, it is difficult to infer that there has been
a procedural breakdown or the PUCL guidelines were flagrantly
violated – Further, in the absence of independent corroboration
or affidavits from affected persons, the assertions remain more or
less speculative – However, the records furnished by the State
themselves indicate that some instances may warrant further
evaluation to ascertain whether the guidelines laid down in PUCL
have been meticulously complied with, in both letter and spirit –
This Court cannot remain indifferent where the rights and dignity
of individuals, particularly in the context of alleged extra-judicial
actions, are at stake – To ensure justice to the victims and their

* Author
882 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

families, and to uphold the sanctity of the procedure established
by law, it is held that the issues raised in the instant petition merit
a fair and impartial inquiry – The Constitutional Courts must act to
preserve both legality and accountability – Therefore, the impugned
Judgment of the High Court dated 27.01.2023 is set aside – The
matter is directed to be reinstated on the board of the Assam
Human Rights Commission (AHRC) for necessary inquiry into
the allegations independently and expeditiously, in accordance
with law – The AHRC is directed to issue a public notice inviting
all individuals who claim to be aggrieved (victims and their family
members) by the alleged police encounters to come forward and
furnish relevant information or evidence before the AHRC – The
State of Assam is directed to extend full cooperation to the AHRC –
Further, the ASLSA directed to make legal assistance available to
individuals seeking support in approaching or presenting their case
before the AHRC for which its Member Secretary is also directed
to issue specific instructions to the District and Taluk level officers.
[Paras 32, 36, 38, 55]

Public Interest Litigation – Alleged cause espoused by a third
party – Locus standi:
Held: It is trite law that since the evolution of the PIL jurisdiction,
particularly post the landmark pronouncements beginning in 1984,
the doctrine of locus standi has been considerably liberalised –
Widening of the gates to justice, comes an enhanced responsibility
upon the court to ensure that this jurisdiction is not invoked in a
manner that causes more harm than good – Where the alleged
cause espoused by a third party in the form of a PIL relates to
a specific individual or a closed set of individuals—particularly
where the implications of judicial intervention may directly alter or
jeopardize the legal position of the victim or their kin—it becomes
imperative for the courts to tread with utmost circumspection –
The danger of an unintended miscarriage of justice or irreversible
prejudice being caused to an invisible and voiceless victim or their
family, merely because a well-meaning but distanced individual
has approached a Writ Court, cannot be discounted – In such
situations, it is not sufficient for the court to proceed solely on the
averments of the person advancing the cause before the court –
Instead, it becomes obligatory for the court to independently explore
mechanisms—institutional or otherwise—that can facilitate direct
communication with the victim or their family, thereby enabling
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 883

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

them to make an informed choice about participation or redressal
through judicial means. [Paras 19, 20, 21]
Fake Police Encounters – Context and framework of guidelines
laid down in judgment of PUCL – Discussed. [Paras 11-17]
Role of National and State Human Rights Commissions –
Discussed. [Paras 40-46]

Case Law Cited
People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
& Ors [2014] 12 SCR 54 : (2014) 10 SCC 635; Extra Judicial
Execution Victim and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition
(Crl.) No.129/2012 (decided by Supreme Court) – referred to.

List of Acts
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; AHRC (Procedure)
Regulations, 2001; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
Public interest litigation; Police encounters; Encounter killing;
Inviolable guarantees of life and personal liberty; Imperatives
of law enforcement; Fake encounters; Primacy of rule of law;
Glorifying police encounters; Public heroism; Extra-judicial
killings; Use of excessive or unlawful force by public authorities;
Derogation from principles of due process; Traditional adversarial
system; Unintended miscarriage of justice; Invisible and voiceless
victim or their family; Abuse of power; Public interest jurisdiction;
Procedural safeguards; Constitutional obligations; Accountability of
law enforcement; Right to life; Article 21 of the Constitution; Non-
consideration of ballistic and forensic reports; Partial compliance;
Fairness and objectivity in investigative process; Domestic human
rights architecture; Independent watchdogs; Principle of fairness;
Witness protection protocols.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2867 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2023 of the Gauhati
High Court in PIL No. 86 of 2021
884 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Ria Yadav, Shiyas Kr.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G.,
Devajit Saikia, Advocate General (Assam), Nalin Kohli, Parthiv
Goswami, Sr. Advs., Shuvodeep Roy, Saurabh Tripathi, Deepayan
Dutta, Digvijay Dam, Krishnajyoti Deka, Anshul Malik, Ms. Shruti
Agrawal, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Siddhant
Yadav, Ms. Anasuya Choudhury, Ms. Atiga Singh, Abhinav Jha.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Surya Kant, J.

Leave granted.
2. The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in the
State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which has
been called into question on various counts. At the heart of these
proceedings lie concerns that straddle the delicate boundary between
the imperatives of law enforcement and the inviolable guarantees of
life and personal liberty enshrined in our Constitution.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.01.2023
(Impugned Judgment), whereby the High Court of Gauhati (High
Court) dismissed PIL No. 86/2021, inter alia seeking: (i) records of
all alleged fake encounters in the State of Assam, (ii) registration
of FIR against the erring police officials and (iii) independent
investigation against such officials in compliance with the guidelines
laid down by this Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties &
Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.1 The petition was dismissed
by the High Court, holding that the PIL was premature and the
documents placed on record only made out vague assertions.
Nevertheless, the High Court directed that the Appellant shall be

1 People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2014) 10 SCC 635.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 885

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

provided all legally permissible documents in connection with all
such cases, if so applied.
4. The Appellant is before us asserting that no meaningful or effective
inquiry has been undertaken in respect of these cases and the
guidelines laid down in PUCL (supra) has been flouted blatantly.

A. Factual Background
5. Before adverting to the issues and contentions raised by the parties,
we deem it appropriate to narrate the factual background leading to
the instant appeal briefly.
5.1. The Appellant in the Writ Petition filed before the High Court
alleged that as many as 80 fake encounters took place in the
State of Assam between May, 2021 and December, 2021.
According to him, 28 persons were killed and 48 were left
injured, during these encounters. It was further alleged that
police authorities have justified these actions on the basis that
escape attempts from the accused persons prompted them to
open fire in purported self-defence, resulting in death or injury.
5.2. Alarmed by the growing incidence of police encounters, the
Appellant firstly addressed a complaint on 10.07.2021 to the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Respondent
No. 4 herein. The Appellant beseeched the NHRC about the
multiple incidents of police encounters and requested to take
cognizance of the matter. Shortly thereafter, on 12.07.2021,
the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Respondent
No. 5 herein, also sent a suo-moto notice to the Government
of Assam and sought a report. It appears from the records
that AHRC had already taken notice of the issue pertaining to
increasing incidents of encounters on 07.07.2021, i.e., prior to
the complaint addressed by the Appellant to the NHRC.
5.3. The NHRC on 29.11.2021, transferred the Appellant’s complaint
to the AHRC on the premise that the latter had already taken
note of the issue. Not long after, on 20.12.2021, the Appellant
filed the aforestated PIL Petition before the High Court, raising
the issue of the alleged fake encounters. It may be apposite to
add here that during the pendency of the proceedings before
886 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the High Court, the full bench of the AHRC on 12.01.2022,
disposed of the matter before it on the ground that the subject
matter was pending adjudication before the High Court and
Regulation 7(XII) of the AHRC (Procedure) Regulations,
2001 do not permit entertaining of complaints that are sub-
judice before any other Court/Tribunal.
5.4. The Appellant moved an application in the PIL proceedings
seeking copies of the FIRs registered pursuant to these police
encounters. The High Court granted him liberty to apply to the
Prosecuting Inspectors of each district in the State of Assam for
accessing the same. He consequently applied to the concerned
authorities. The Appellant appears to have maintained that there
were 101 known incidents at that point of time. However, only
the authorities of 12 districts (out of total of 30), supplied him
copies of 41 FIRs.
5.5. In the meantime, the Respondent No. 1, filed several compliance
affidavits before the High Court in the pending proceedings,
candidly acknowledging that between May 2021 and August
2022, 171 instance of police encounters had taken place wherein
56 persons were killed including 4 custodial deaths, and 145
persons were injured. As such, the scope of the Petition was
expanded, and all 171 alleged police encounters between May
2021 and August 2022 came to be scrutinised.
5.6. The High Court, however, after considering the affidavits filed by
the parties and other material on record, dismissed the petition
holding that that “unless proper foundational facts are brought
to the notice of the court, a Public Interest Litigation in such
a matter cannot be maintained merely on the basis of some
vague and unsubstantiated assertions”. The High Court returned
a categorical finding that the Appellant has failed to point out
any infirmity in the procedure adopted in any of the enquiry
proceedings or any guideline laid down in PUCL (supra) based
on the materials brought on record. Given the foregoing, the
High Court also turned down the prayer to constitute a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) or hand over the investigation of these
encounters to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The High
Court ofcourse directed that the Appellant shall be provided all
legally permissible documents in connection with all such cases.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 887

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

B. Contentions on behalf of the Appellant
6. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Appellant, strongly
contended that the High Court has fell in error in overlooking the fact
that 56 persons have lost their lives and 145 have been grievously
injured in police encounters. According to him, the guidelines
laid down in PUCL (supra) were not adhered to in any of these
incidents.
7. In support of his contentions, Mr. Bhushan has advanced the following
submissions:
a) At the outset, any imputation on the bona fides of the Appellant
is unfounded. The Appellant is a permanent resident of the State
of Assam and being a practicing advocate, espouses the cause
of transparency and accountability of public institutions. The
majority of the victims and/or their families are either unaware
of their rights or are scared to approach the police officials
seeking further investigation.
b) The FIRs pertaining to the incidents of police encounters have
been registered against the victims i.e., the persons killed or
injured and not against the concerned police officials. The
registration of FIRs is in violation of the guidelines laid down
by this Court in Para 31.2 of the judgment in PUCL (supra)
which prescribes that in the event of an encounter leading
to death, an FIR shall be registered and forwarded to the
jurisdictional court under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC).
c) The investigation into these incidents of police encounters has
not been conducted in an independent manner. In this regard,
Para 31.3 of the judgment in PUCL (supra) mandates that an
independent investigation into the incident shall be conducted
by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) or police team of
another police station under the supervision of a senior officer.
However, the investigation into these police encounters was
conducted by officers from the same police station.
d) Such so-called investigation was merely an eye wash and
nothing more than a superficial exercise, intended to create an
illusion of accountability. It was riddled with a glaring conflict
of interest, and not only did it compromise the integrity of the
888 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

process but also provided the officers involved with a convenient
opportunity to shield themselves from scrutiny and evade any
real consequences for their misconduct.
e) A perusal of the 41 FIRs supplied to the Appellant, 12 of which
were also placed on record before the High Court, clearly
indicates a somewhat similar modus operandi adopted by the
police officials who have justified the killings and injury caused
to people on the pretext that they were trying to flee. This gives
rise to the apprehension that the police officials have undertaken
these encounters in a premeditated manner and not in self
defence as proclaimed by them.
f) The guidelines laid down by this Court in PUCL (supra)
mandates that the concerned police official must surrender their
weapon for forensic/ballistic analysis. In breach of the prescribed
guidelines, the Magisterial inquiries in several incidents remain
silent on this aspect, offering no indication as to whether any
ballistic or forensic examinations were ever conducted. The
Appellant has illustratively pointed out the inquiry reports in the
cases of deaths of Dimasa National Liberation Army (DNLA)
cadres, suspects of the United People’s Revolutionary Front,
Kanwaldeep Singh Sindhu, Sorangi China, and Bubu Konwar
which do not refer to the forensic analysis.
g) Regardless of the clear mandate laid down in PUCL (supra),
which expressly requires a Magisterial inquiry or an independent
investigation even in cases involving grievous injuries, this
crucial procedural safeguard has been disregarded. In the
majority of such instances, no such inquiry or investigation
has been initiated, reflecting a serious departure from the
established legal framework intended to ensure transparency
and accountability.
h) The State of Assam has failed to indicate the present status of
investigation in all the 171 cases leading to death or grievous
injury. The table tendered before this Court on 25.02.2025
indicates that charge sheet has been filed in 5 out of the 41
cases leading to death. However, the charge sheets have not
been placed on record, and it is feared that they may be against
the victims, not the concerned police personnel.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 889

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

C. Contentions on behalf of the Respondent(s)
8. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, along with Mr.
Devajit Saikia, Advocate General and Mr. Nalin Kohli, Additional
Advocate General for the State of Assam, appearing for Respondent
Nos. 1-3 have vehemently asserted that the High Court has rightly
dismissed the PIL as the Appellant failed to establish or point out
any lacunae in the investigation conducted into the instances of
police encounters.
9. Their submissions may be summarised as follows:
a) The issues raised in the instant petition are vague, baseless
and whimsical, and the High Court rightly dismissed the same
as being premature. As per the reports submitted by the
Superintendent of Police of all the districts, the guidelines issued
by this Court in PUCL (supra) have been diligently observed
in all death cases.
b) In all instances where police encounters have resulted in death,
separate FIRs have been lodged; independent investigations
have been conducted; and Magisterial inquiries have also been
ordered. In its affidavit dated 29.09.2022, the State of Assam
has categorically stated that 171 cases have been registered
and that investigations are currently underway.
c) The reliance placed by the Appellant on Para 31.3 of the
judgment in PUCL (supra) to suggest that ‘an independent
investigation into the incident shall be conducted by the CID
or police team of another police station’ in every incident, is
completely misplaced and incorrect. The judgment does not
contemplate the registration of FIR at a different police station.
The Appellant’s contention in this regard is thoroughly untenable
as the FIR has to be registered by the police station having
jurisdiction over the matter. The Appellant’s claim in this regard
would make the investigation unnecessarily onerous and time-
consuming. Similarly, the need for constituting an independent
investigating agency would arise only when a prima facie case
has been made out that investigation is not being carried out in
accordance with the due procedure prescribed by law.
d) Fair and impartial magisterial inquiries have been conducted in
all incidents where death has been caused in police encounters.
890 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

More importantly, all these inquiries have been undertaken
strictly per the guidelines in PUCL (supra). The particulars of
the stage of investigation or conduct of magisterial inquiry in all
171 cases were placed before the High Court vide the affidavit
dated 29.09.2022.
e) Insofar as the reference to forensic/ballistic reports is concerned,
the Appellant has sought to present unsubstantiaed claims
without being supported by any cogent facts. He has selectively
read the reports and deliberately concealed the fact that
ballistic examination reports and forensic reports were yet to
be received in some cases, and in others, were received later.
Those reports were duly considered before filing of the charge
sheet or final report.
f) The Appellant’s contention that PUCL (supra) applies even in
cases of grievous injury is totally erroneous. The judgment only
provides that the guidelines will also apply to grievous injury
cases in police encounters, as far as possible. The phrase ‘as
far as possible’ shows that compliance and adherence to the
guidelines need not be made in a strict sense.
g) The allegation of the Appellant that the State of Assam has
failed to indicate the present status of the investigation is also
entirely misplaced. It is noteworthy that the State of Assam,
in its counter-affidavit dated 29.04.2024, has stated that out
of a total of 171 cases, charge sheets have been filed in 125
cases, forwarding reports were submitted in 23 cases, and
that the remaining 23 cases were still pending investigation.
The competent police officials have investigated all the cases
under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police of the
concerned districts.

D. Issues for Consideration
10. Having regard to the rival submissions, we find that the following
issues arise for our consideration:
a) Whether the allegations made by the Appellant prima facie
establish violation of the guidelines laid down by this Court in
PUCL (supra) ?
b) If so, what are the remedial measures?
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 891

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

E. Analysis

E.1. Understanding the Context and Framework of the Guidelines
laid down in PUCL (supra)
11. The instant controversy, in its core, revolves around the alleged
infraction of the PUCL (supra) guidelines. We therefore deem it
appropriate to firstly advert to the context, intent, and purport of
those guidelines.
12. The PUCL case arose against the backdrop of allegations of fake or
staged police encounters in the State of Maharashtra and other parts
of the country, where individuals purported to be criminals were killed
by the police. The petitioner therein, PUCL, sought court-monitored
guidelines to curb the misuse of power and ensure accountability
and transparency in such encounters, in light of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
13. This Court recognised the gravity of the issue, noting that fake
encounters are extra-judicial killings and must be subject to strict
legal scrutiny. While issuing sixteen (16) mandatory guidelines, this
Court held that any encounter killing must be investigated fairly and
independently, and cannot be treated as justified merely on the claim
of self-defence by the Police.
14. To examine the contention at hand, we deem it appropriate to extract
a few guidelines that have been contested before us:
“31.1. Whenever the Police is in receipt of any intelligence
or tip-off regarding criminal movements or activities
pertaining to the Commission of grave criminal offence,
it shall be reduced into writing in some form (preferably
into case diary) or in some electronic form. Such recording
need not reveal details of the suspect or the location to
which the party is headed. If such intelligence or tip-off
is received by a higher authority, the same may be noted
in some form without revealing details of the suspect or
the location.
31.2. If pursuant to the tip-off or receipt of any intelligence,
as above, encounter takes place and firearm is used
by the police party and as a result of that, death
892 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

occurs, an FIR to that effect shall be registered
and the same shall be forwarded to the court under
Section 157 of the Code without any delay. While
forwarding the report under Section 157 of the Code,
the procedure prescribed under Section 158 of the Code
shall be followed.
31.3. An independent investigation into the incident/
encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police
team of another police station under the supervision
of a senior officer (at least a level above the head of
the police party engaged in the encounter). The team
conducting inquiry/investigation shall, at a minimum,
seek...
31.4. A Magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the
Code must invariably be held in all cases of death
which occur in the course of police firing and a
report thereof must be sent to Judicial Magistrate having
jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code.
31.5. The involvement of NHRC is not necessary unless
there is serious doubt about independent and impartial
investigation. However, the information of the incident
without any delay must be sent to NHRC or the State
Human Rights Commission, as the case may be.
*****
31.7. It should be ensured that there is no delay in
sending FIR, diary entries, panchnamas, sketch, etc., to
the concerned Court.
31.8. After full investigation into the incident, the report
should be sent to the competent court under Section
173 of the Code. The trial, pursuant to the chargesheet
submitted by the Investigating Officer, must be concluded
expeditiously.
31.9. In the event of death, the next of kin of the alleged
criminal/victim must be informed at the earliest.
*****
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 893

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

31.13. The police officer(s) concerned must surrender his/
her weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, including
any other material, as required by the investigating team,
subject to the rights under Article 20 of the Constitution.
*****
31.16. If the family of the victim finds that the above
procedure has not been followed or there exists a
pattern of abuse or lack of independent investigation
or impartiality by any of the functionaries as above
mentioned, it may make a complaint to the Sessions
Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place of
incident. Upon such complaint being made, the concerned
Sessions Judge shall look into the merits of the complaint
and address the grievances raised therein.
32. The above guidelines will also be applicable to
grievous injury cases in police encounter, as far as
possible.”
15. It may be seen that the guidelines provide for the registration of FIR,
independent investigation, Magisterial inquiry, involvement of forensic
science, informing the next of kin, compensation and information to
the NHRC and State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), among
others. These guidelines, in a way, reaffirm the primacy of the Rule
of Law as the bedrock of our constitutional democracy. This Court
authoritatively held that no individual or institution, including the
Police or law enforcement agencies, is above the law. It cautioned
against the emerging culture of glorifying police encounters as
indicators of effective policing or public heroism and observed that
such glorification distorts the role of the Police in a constitutional
democracy and fosters a climate of impunity, where extra-judicial
methods are valorised over legal processes.
16. It needs no emphasis that, the use of excessive or unlawful force
by public authorities, irrespective of the nature of the offence or the
antecedents of the victim, cannot be condoned or legitimised on any
pretext. Any derogation from the principles of due process, even in
the name of expediency or public safety, erodes the foundation of
a democratic and civilised society.
894 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

17. Having impressed upon the befitting relevance of the PUCL (supra)
principles and having delineated the dictum governing the present
controversy, the stage is now set to examine the rival contentions
advanced by the parties.

E.2.Whether the allegations made by the Appellant prima facie
establish violation of the guidelines laid down by this Court in
PUCL (supra) ?

E.2.1. Locus Standi of the Appellant
18. At the very outset, we deem it appropriate to address the objection
raised on behalf of the Respondent questioning the locus of the
Appellant to maintain the present proceedings. The Appellant
approached the High Court purportedly on the ground that the
victims and their families are either unaware of their legal rights or
too intimidated to approach the appropriate authorities. While such
apprehensions may not be entirely unfounded, the question that
arises is whether the Appellant, as a third party, can invoke the Writ
Jurisdiction of the High Court in a matter that appears to impact
specific individuals more directly than the public at large.
19. It is trite law that since the evolution of the PIL jurisdiction, particularly
post the landmark pronouncements beginning in 1984, the doctrine of
locus standi has been considerably liberalised. The transformation of
the traditional adversarial system into a more participatory model, has
allowed conscientious citizens to knock at the doors of Constitutional
Courts in matters involving gross violations of Fundamental Rights,
environmental degradation, systemic corruption, or executive apathy
affecting large segments of society.
20. However, with the widening of the gates to justice, comes
an enhanced responsibility upon the court to ensure that this
jurisdiction is not invoked in a manner that causes more harm
than good. Where the alleged cause espoused by a third party in
the form of a PIL relates to a specific individual or a closed set of
individuals — particularly where the implications of judicial intervention
may directly alter or jeopardize the legal position of the victim or
their kin — it becomes imperative for the courts to tread with utmost
circumspection.
21. The danger of an unintended miscarriage of justice or irreversible
prejudice being caused to an invisible and voiceless victim or their
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 895

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

family, merely because a well-meaning but distanced individual has
approached a Writ Court, cannot be discounted. In such situations,
it is not sufficient for the court to proceed solely on the averments of
the person advancing the cause before the court. Instead, it becomes
obligatory for the court to independently explore mechanisms —
institutional or otherwise — that can facilitate direct communication
with the victim or their family, thereby enabling them to make an
informed choice about participation or redressal through judicial
means.
22. Adverting the facts of this case, we deem it appropriate to acknowledge
the role played by the Appellant in bringing to the court’s attention a
matter that raises grave and disquieting concerns. The assertion that
several victims and their families are either helpless to seek legal
recourse or too intimidated to approach the authorities need not be
summarily disregarded. It is not uncommon in situations involving
alleged abuse of power by State actors for the affected individuals
to remain silent, either out of fear or lack of resources. The Appellant
has, through sustained efforts, placed before this Court as many as
171 individual instances, each warranting objective scrutiny.
23. It must, however, be borne in mind that the mere compilation or
aggregation of cases does not, by itself, call for omnibus judicial
directions. The allegations that some of these incidents may
involve fake encounters are indeed serious and, if proven, would
amount to a grave violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution. It is however equally possible that upon a fair, impartial,
and independent investigation, some of these cases may turn out
to be necessary and legally justified. This distinction is critical. The
issuance of broad-brush directives without individual scrutiny could
result in a miscarriage of justice, either by shielding the guilty or by
stigmatizing legitimate action by public servants discharging their
duty under challenging circumstances.
24. It is in this delicate constitutional balance that the court must situate
its response. The invocation of public interest jurisdiction, cannot
become a substitute for procedural safeguards and the right of
individual victims or their families to be heard. The risk of issuing
general directions in the absence of independent assessment is not
merely procedural — it strikes at the very heart of the principles of
fairness and due process that underpin our judicial system. The
896 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

jurisprudence developed by this Court over the decades reinforces the
position that justice must be individualized where the consequences
are personal and irreversible.
25. It therefore becomes incumbent upon this Court to devise a calibrated
mechanism whereby each of the alleged incidents is examined
independently, and where victims or their families are accorded a
real and meaningful opportunity to participate in the process. Their
voices must be heard not as a matter of courtesy, but as a matter of
right. The function of a Constitutional Court in such circumstances
is not merely adjudicatory, but protective — to safeguard the rule
of law, and to ensure that the promise of justice does not remain
illusory for those who are most vulnerable.

E.2.2. Obligation of this Court to safeguard Constitutional
obligations
26. In order to consider the veracity of the allegations regarding the
violation of the guidelines enumerated in PUCL (supra), we have
already set out in detail the contentions advanced by the parties in
the preceding sections of this judgment. The contentions raised by
the Appellant are rooted in constitutional concerns relating to the
right to life and the accountability of law enforcement, particularly in
light of the binding nature of the procedural safeguards mandated
by this Court.
27. According to the Appellant, there has been a profound and systemic
failure in adhering to the cited guidelines, in the aftermath of a
series of police encounters in the State of Assam. The Appellant
alleges that in several cases, no FIR has been registered against the
concerned police officials, or the provisions invoked in the FIR are
not appropriate for cases of police encounters. It was also argued
that in some instances, the FIR has been registered against the
victims of these police encounters and not the erring police officials.
According to the Appellant, such inappropriate registration of FIRs
directly contravenes this Court’s mandate, which unequivocally
requires that every case of encounter resulting in death or grievous
injury must be brought under the ambit of criminal law through the
registration of a case.
28. In addition, the Appellant has pointed to the absence of an independent
investigation by the CID or a police team from another police station,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 897

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

which is a sine qua non under the PUCL (supra) guidelines to ensure
objectivity and prevent conflict of interest. The Appellant has further
alleged non-compliance with the requirement of a magisterial inquiry
in cases involving grievous injuries or deaths, as well as the absence
of any reference to ballistic and forensic reports.
29. These allegations have however been vehemently refuted by the
Respondents, who submitted that in all instances where police
encounters have led to death, separate FIRs have been lodged, an
independent investigation conducted and a Magisterial Inquiry has
also been ordered. The State, in its counter-affidavit has stated that
out of a total of 171 cases, a charge sheet has been filed in 125
cases, a forwarding report submitted in 23 cases, and the remaining
23 cases were still under investigation. The Respondents also
maintain that the requirement of involving an independent agency,
such as the CID or a team from another police station, must be
assessed contextually, and not applied as a blanket directive. Such
recourse becomes necessary only where credible allegations are
raised suggesting bias, partiality, or procedural deviation on the part
of the local investigating authorities.
30. In essence, the thrust of the argument is that the guidelines in PUCL
(supra) are to be interpreted as laying down general procedural
safeguards to ensure fairness and transparency, but not as creating
a rigid or mechanical requirement that displaces the jurisdiction of
the local Police in every encounter case, unless justified by the facts
of the case.
31. Insofar as the allegation relating to the non-consideration of ballistic
and forensic reports is concerned, the Respondents have submitted
that the Appellant, in undue haste, has painted an incomplete and
premature portrait of the investigative process. The Respondents
claim that the concerned forensic and ballistic reports were received
and duly taken into account by the investigating authorities, albeit at
a later stage in the proceedings. Mere timing of such consideration
does not ipso facto establish procedural impropriety, particularly when
the reports form part of the final investigative record.
32. Upon a comprehensive examination, it emerges that several instances
cited by the Appellant to demonstrate procedural non-compliance
of PUCL (supra) guidelines are factually incorrect or incomplete.
898 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

The Appellant has failed to independently place on record any
cogent or verifiable material to substantiate the allegations. He has
merely relied upon the data furnished by the State itself to highlight
purported lapses. After minutely scanning such data, prima facie
it seems that barring a few cases, it is difficult to infer that there
has been a procedural breakdown or the PUCL (supra) guidelines
were flagrantly violated. Further, in the absence of independent
corroboration or affidavits from affected persons, the assertions
remain more or less speculative.
33. The record further suggests that FIRs have been registered in all the
cases brought to our notice. The State of Assam has also submitted
a status report detailing each FIR and the respective stage of
investigation or prosecution. These documents prima facie belie the
claim of inaction and do establish that, at least at the foundational
level, the criminal process was duly initiated.
34. As regards the requirement of magisterial inquiry under the framework
prescribed by PUCL (supra), the State has demonstrated that such
inquiries were conducted in several cases. However, the record
remains inconclusive as to whether this procedural safeguard was
uniformly followed in all encounter-related incidents, as is mandatorily
required in terms of the referenced judgment. While partial compliance
is visible, the absence of a clear and consistent procedural trail in
some cases calls for closer administrative scrutiny by an independent
authority to ensure uniform adherence.
35. On the aspect of forensic and ballistic analysis, the State of
Assam has acknowledged that relevant reports were obtained and
considered in the course of the investigation. Nonetheless, it is also
apparent that such consideration occurred belatedly. While delayed
compliance cannot be equated with total omission, the procedural
sanctity envisaged by this Court necessitates that such reports be
requisitioned and evaluated at the earliest possible stage to ensure
fairness and objectivity in the investigative process.
36. Be that as it may, the records furnished by the State themselves
indicate that some instances may warrant further evaluation to
ascertain whether the guidelines laid down in PUCL (supra) have
been meticulously complied with, in both letter and spirit. The gravity
of the issues involved, namely, implicating the Fundamental Rights
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 899

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

under Article 21 requires that procedural safeguards are not merely
observed in form, but are meaningfully enforced to inspire public
confidence in the Rule of Law.
37. We may hasten to clarify that the foregoing observation should not be
construed as casting any aspersions on the investigation carried out
by the State of Assam. No finding of mala fides or institutional bias
can be returned through a summary procedure such as the instant
proceedings. Given the constitutional importance of the procedural
mandates enunciated by this Court, it is imperative, in the interest
of justice, that an impartial and independent institution undertakes
a careful verification of compliance in each case. Such scrutiny, if
undertaken in good faith and within the administrative framework
already available, will reinforce transparency and accountability in
the criminal justice process.
38. Thus, even if the Appellant has not been able to conclusively
demonstrate the allegations of illegality or procedural violation on
the part of the Respondents, this Court cannot remain indifferent
where the rights and dignity of individuals, particularly in the context
of alleged extra-judicial actions, are at stake. To ensure justice to the
victims and their families, and to uphold the sanctity of the procedure
established by law, we hold that the issues raised in the instant
petition merit a fair and impartial inquiry. The obligation of this Court
to safeguard constitutional guarantees persists irrespective of the
identity or capacity of the litigant, and where concerns arise regarding
adherence to judicially mandated guidelines, the Constitutional Courts
must act to preserve both legality and accountability.

E.3. If so, what are the remedial measures?
39. Having held that the issue raised in the instant appeal requires fact
finding inquiry, we now proceed to analyse what would constitute
an appropriate response to these apprehensions.

E.3.1. Role of the National and State Human Rights Commissions
in the instant controversy
40. The domestic human rights architecture in India is supported by
a robust statutory framework that complements the constitutional
guarantees enshrined in Part III and the Directive Principles of State
Policy. Over the years, the Legislature has enacted various laws to
900 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

protect vulnerable groups, ensure accountability, and strengthen
institutional mechanisms for enforcing human rights. At the centre
of this framework stands the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
(PHR Act), which institutionalises the commitment of the Indian State
to uphold and monitor human rights in a structured and independent
manner.
41. The PHR Act serves as the primary statutory instrument for the
promotion and protection of human rights in India. The Act defines
‘human rights’ under Section 2(d) as the ‘rights relating to life, liberty,
equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution
or embodied in international covenants and enforceable by Indian
courts’. The establishment of the NHRC and SHRC under the
PHR Act reflects an attempt to create autonomous, quasi-judicial
bodies capable of independent inquiry and intervention in matters
concerning human rights violations. These institutions are vested
with wide-ranging powers, including the ability to summon witnesses,
requisition public records, and initiate investigations suo motu or on
petitions filed by aggrieved individuals. In practice, they function as
vital conduits for bringing instances of abuse or administrative apathy
to the fore, particularly where traditional avenues of redress may be
inaccessible or delayed.
42. The PHR Act institutionalises grievance redressal, oversight, and
education mechanisms while linking domestic law with international
human rights instruments. These multifaceted roles underscore
the position that these Commissions not merely a reactive body
responding to complaints, but a proactive institution seeking systemic
reform and capacity-building across state institutions. Though
challenges in implementation and enforcement persist, the PHR Act
represents a formal legislative acknowledgement of the inalienable
nature of human rights and India’s democratic obligation to protect
them.
43. This Court in the matter of Extra Judicial Execution Victim and Anr.
vs. Union of India and Ors.,2 has rightly underscored the roles of
the Human Rights Commission as ‘that of protector, advisor, monitor
and educator of human rights’. In that spirit, it is imperative that their
functioning is empowered, respected, and made responsive, so that

2 Extra Judicial Execution Victim and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 129/2012.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 901

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

they may discharge their duties not merely as passive observers but
as active protectors of fundamental human freedoms.
44. Applying this understanding of the human rights framework to the
instant controversy, we have no hesitation in holding that the role of
Human Rights Commissions, both at the National and State levels, is
paramount in a democratic polity governed by the Rule of Law. These
institutions serve as independent watchdogs tasked with safeguarding
the dignity, liberty, and rights of individuals, particularly the vulnerable
and marginalised who may lack access to institutional redress. In
a country as vast and diverse as India, marked by complex socio-
political dynamics and systemic inequities, these Commissions provide
an essential forum for accountability, transparency, and remedial
action against human rights violations. Their mandate to investigate
complaints, monitor custodial institutions, and recommend reforms
reinforces the constitutional vision of justice, liberty, and equality.
45. To that effect, we are pained to observe that, in this matter, the
jurisdiction of AHRC was consciously ousted. It is a matter of record
that AHRC had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter even before
the Appellant filed a complaint before the NHRC. Despite the AHRC
being seized of the matter and also being the appropriate forum vested
with territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction, the Appellant chose to
invoke the PIL jurisdiction of the High Court at a subsequent stage,
as a result of which the AHRC disposed of the proceedings hastily.
46. We are certain that the Appellant did not approach the High Court
with an intention to render statutory institutions redundant or to
obstruct their independent functioning. Human Rights Commissions,
particularly those functioning at the state level, are designed to
act as swift, accessible, and credible bodies for investigating and
redressing violations of human dignity and constitutional safeguards.
We reiterate that the efficacy of such institutions is directly linked to
public trust and procedural integrity. We also expect these Human
Rights Commissions to be proactive in their approach and conduct
proceedings with a sense of urgency and purpose that resonates
with the gravity of the allegations.

E.3.2. Striking the Constitutional Balance: The Path Ahead
47. Having considered the nature of the controversy, we are of the firm
view that the instant case involves several questions of fact which
902 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

cannot be effectively determined by this Court. Similarly, the instant
dispute is neither amenable to adjudication through a conventional
trial, nor can the investigation be fairly or effectively entrusted to
the State Police, as the allegations pertain to the conduct of police
officials themselves. The principle of fairness, which is the bedrock
of all just legal processes, mandates that any inquiry into the alleged
excesses must be independent and insulated from institutional bias.
The risk of conflict of interest and the apprehension of a lack of real
or perceived impartiality render it inappropriate to involve the State
Police in further inquiry.
48. Having outlined the significance, jurisdiction, and institutional mandate
of the Human Rights Commissions, it has come to our knowledge
that the AHRC is now headed by an erudite jurist who is a retired
Chief Justice of the High Court whose judicial acumen and integrity
inspire confidence. This Court has every reason to believe that under
his stewardship, the AHRC will discharge its duties with diligence,
sensitivity, and an abiding commitment to constitutional values.
Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to entrust the inquiry of this matter
to the AHRC for advancing it to its logical conclusion. The order dated
12.01.2022 passed by the full bench of the AHRC, whereby it had
disposed of this issue is thus, set aside. The matter is directed to be
reinstated on the board of the AHRC for necessary inquiry into the
allegations independently and expeditiously, in accordance with law.
49. In furtherance of the foregoing direction, we consider it essential
to ensure that the victims of the alleged incidents, or their family
members, are given a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate
in the proceedings. To that end, we direct the AHRC to issue a public
notice inviting all individuals who claim to be aggrieved (victims and
their family members) by the alleged police encounters to come
forward and furnish relevant information or evidence before AHRC.
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. The notice shall also include the contact details of the
officers of the Taluka and District Legal Services Authorities, thereby
enabling the victims and/or their families to access free legal aid in
approaching the AHRC.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 903

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

50. We further direct that the AHRC may ensure confidentiality with respect
to the identity of the victims, their families, or any other individuals
who approach it in connection with the inquiry. AHRC is expected
to adopt robust measures akin to witness protection protocols to
safeguard the privacy, safety and security of those participating in
the process. We say so because the protection of such identities is
imperative to create an atmosphere of trust and prevent any fear
of reprisal or intimidation. 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.
51. Should the AHRC, in the course of its inquiry, form the opinion that
a more detailed investigation is warranted to ascertain the facts
and circumstances surrounding the alleged encounters, it shall be
at liberty to initiate such an investigation through means it deems
fit. For this purpose, the AHRC may engage the services of retired
or serving police officers of impeccable integrity and unblemished
record, provided that such officers are not in any way connected
with or subordinate to the police personnel involved in the alleged
incidents. The choice of personnel and the manner of conducting
such an investigation shall remain within the discretion of AHRC.
52. We direct the State of Assam to extend full cooperation to the AHRC
and ensure that all logistical, financial, and administrative require-
ments for such an investigation are promptly and adequately met.
The State is also directed 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.
53. Furthermore, to ensure that victims and their families are not dis-
advantaged due to a lack of resources or awareness, we direct the
Assam State Legal Services Authority (ASLSA) to make legal as-
sistance available to any such individuals who may seek support in
approaching or presenting their case before the AHRC. We direct
the Member Secretary of the ASLSA to issue specific instructions
to District and Taluk level officers in this regard.
54. In this vein, the Appellant in his capacity as an Advocate, shall be
free to represent the victims or their families before the AHRC, if so
engaged by them.
904 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

F. Conclusion
55. Considering the totality of the circumstances and for the reasons
assigned hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the
instant appeal with the following directions:
a) The Impugned Judgment of the High Court dated 27.01.2023
is set aside;
b) The order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the full bench of the
AHRC disposing of this issue on the pretext that the subject
matter was sub-judice before the High Court is also set aside.
This matter is directed to be reinstated on the board of the
AHRC for necessary inquiry into the allegations independently
and expeditiously, in accordance with law;
c) The AHRC is directed to issue a public notice inviting all
individuals who claim to be aggrieved (victims and their family
members) by the alleged police encounters to come forward and
furnish relevant information or evidence before the AHRC. The
notice shall be published in at least one national English daily
and one prominent vernacular newspapers with wide circulation
throughout the State of Assam. The notice shall also include the
contact details of the officers of the Taluka and District Legal
Services Authorities, thereby enabling the victims and/or their
families to access free legal aid;
d) AHRC may ensure that the identity of the victims, their families,
or any other individuals who approach it in connection with the
inquiry shall be strictly confidential. AHRC is expected to adopt
robust measures akin to witness protection protocols;
e) During the course of its inquiry, if the AHRC forms the opinion
that a more detailed investigation is warranted, it shall be at
liberty to initiate such an investigation through means it deems
fit. For this purpose, the AHRC may engage the services of
retired or serving police officers of impeccable integrity and
unblemished record, provided that such officers are not in
any way connected with the police personnel involved in the
alleged incidents;
f) The State of Assam is directed to extend full cooperation to the
AHRC and ensure that all logistical, financial, and administrative
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 905

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors.

requirements for such an investigation are promptly and
adequately met;
g) We direct the ASLSA to make legal assistance available to
individuals seeking support in approaching or presenting their
case before the AHRC for which its Member Secretary is
directed to issue specific instructions to the District and Taluk
level officers; and
h) The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending interlocutory
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
56. Ordered accordingly.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan