1. Supreme Court voices concerns on Assam fake encounter probes, citing PUCL guideline adherence.
2. Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan query Assam’s compliance with encounter procedures.
3. Hearing delves into Assam’s adherence to PUCL guidelines for fake encounter investigations.
Guwahati, May 01: During a hearing, the Supreme Court expressed apprehensions regarding the investigations into alleged fake encounters in Assam, highlighting concerns over compliance with guidelines outlined in the PUCL judgment.
Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan presided over the bench, raising questions about the Assam government’s adherence to the prescribed encounter investigation procedures.
The petitioner, Supreme Court lawyer Arif Jwadder, asserted that since May 20, 2021, over 80 individuals have fallen victim to fake encounters in Assam.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued that the Assam police failed to adhere to the proper procedure following such encounters, emphasizing the state’s non-mandatory approach towards implementing the PUCL guidelines for every encounter.
The court expressed scepticism regarding the fairness and transparency of the investigations and sought clarification from the state on measures taken to ensure compliance with the PUCL guidelines.
The bench specifically requested suggestions for implementing these guidelines and proposed the appointment of retired judges and police officers to scrutinize each case, recommending remedial actions for any identified violations.
Also Read: April Heatwave Sets New Records Across India: IMD Data
Furthermore, the Supreme Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission to furnish documents about inquiries initiated into these encounters, seeking details about the officers conducting the investigations and their findings.
Advocate Arif Jwadder’s petition advocates for an independent investigation into the alleged fake encounters in Assam and calls for the establishment of Human Rights Courts in the state as mandated by Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act.
The respondents named in the case include the Assam government, the Assam DGP, and the state’s law and justice department.
