Case Writ Petition (Criminal) No.

129 of 2012 (Under Article 32 of the

Number: Constitution of India)

Party Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) and O

Name: Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Counsel: For Appellant: Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General, Colin Gonsalves, V.

Mohana, V. Giri, Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Advs., Arundhati Katju, Advs.
Menaka Guruswamy, (A.C.), Himanshu Agarwal, Basanta Kumar, Jyo
Mendiratta, Ashok Kumar Singh, R. Balasubramaniam, Binu Tamta,
Rajiv Nanda, Anil Katiyar, Sunil Mathews, Santosh Kumar, S.N. Terda
B.V. ...

Judges: Madan B. Lokur and U.U. Lalit , JJ.

Issue: Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 - Sections 3, 4, 6; Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 2, Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 15, Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 - Section 49; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 3, 34, 35, 36, 69, 70
122, 124, 125, 125(2), 126; Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - ..

Citation: 2016 (8) SCJ 419, 2016 (6) SCALE 458

Judgement July 08, 2016

FACT OF THE CASE

In the present CASE , the allegation was that 1528 persons had been
killed in fake encounters by police personnel and personnel in uniform
of the armed forces of the Union.

The allegations being very general in nature, we do not think it

appropriate to pass any direction for the time being in regard to the
cases concerning these written complaints, oral complaints, cases with
eye-witness accounts and family claimed cases. It is not that every
single allegation must necessarily be inquired into. It must be
remembered that we are not dealing with individual cases but a
systemic or institutional response relating to constitutional criminal
law. Deaths investigated by Commissions of Inquiry
In the context of non-compliance of the orders of the NHRC, it has also been
brought by the NHRC that the directions issued by it for payment of
compensation to victims of violation of human rights are sometimes not
adhered to. We have seen in Table - III above that there are some instances
where the directions given by the NHRC for payment of compensation have
not been implemented by the State of Manipur. This is very unfortunate but
we accept the assurance of learned senior counsel appearing for the State of
Manipur that the compensation awarded by the NHRC will soon be paid to
the next of kin of the deceased.

Judgment:

Madan B. Lokur, J.

On the basis of media reports, the National Human Rights Commission

(NHRC) has issued notices to Madhya Pradesh chief secretary, director
general of police and the director general and inspector general of
prisons to send detailed reports, within six weeks, about the encounter
deaths.

On July 8, a Supreme Court bench, comprising justices Madan B.

Lokur and Uday Umesh Lalit, gave a detailed judgment in Extra
Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v Union
of India explaining why even in a disturbed area, armed personnel
cannot claim any immunity from prosecution, if it is proved that they
were responsible for a fake encounter death.
The Supreme Court, in this case, was concerned with the plea for
justice for the relatives of those killed in the fake encounters
perpetrated by armed personnel and the state police while fighting
terrorism in Manipur. The number of alleged victims in fake
encounters in Manipur, according to the petitioners, is 1,528. The
bench has directed verification of each case to decide which of these
would require a judicial enquiry to establish whether the encounter
was fake, so as to punish the perpetrators.

The Supreme Court held in the Manipur case that when the state uses
such excessive or retaliatory force leading to death, it is referred to
as an extra-judicial killing or extra-judicial execution or, as the
Supreme Court put it in another case, it is called “administrative
liquidation”.