Supreme Court, in an Order by Justice Surya Kant, Strengthens Rule-of-Law by Enforcing PUCL Guidelines on Encounter Killings in Assam

Introduction

An important decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of India on May 28, 2025, in response to an appeal that had been lodged by Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder against the State of Assam.

In a written opinion for a bench consisting of two judges, Justice Surya Kant addressed charges of staged or “fake” police encounters and investigated whether or not the state had met with the procedural protections that were established in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others (also known as the “PUCL Guidelines”).

The Supreme Court struck a compromise between the fundamental protection of life and personal liberty, which is included in Article 21 of the Constitution, and the requirement of efficient police procedures.

Factual Background

171 interactions were recorded by the Assam police between May 2021 and August 2022, resulting in 145 injuries and 56 fatalities (including four deaths that occurred while the suspect was in custody).

In order to obtain documents, First Information Report registrations, and independent investigations into these encounters, the appellant, who is a practicing counsel, first petitioned the National Human Rights Commission and later the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

He initiated a public interest lawsuit (PIL) in the Gauhati High Court after the AHRC rejected to continue on the grounds that the matter was already within the jurisdiction of another court.

Although the High Court ruled that the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was premature and made imprecise charges, it did order the State to provide records that were acceptable. After some time, the affidavits submitted by the state ultimately disclosed the whole breadth of the encounters, fatalities, and injuries, bringing the total number of incidences to 171.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

PUCL Guidelines and Their Purpose

For the purpose of preventing extrajudicial executions that occur during police encounters, the Supreme Court of India issued sixteen required recommendations in the case of PUCL v. State of Maharashtra in 2014.

These guidelines mandate the prompt and written recording of intelligence, the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) for any fatal use of firearms, independent investigations conducted by a different police team or CID, a magisterial inquiry conducted in accordance with Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), forensic and ballistic analysis of weapons, timely notification to next of kin, communication with human rights bodies, and expedited trials.

For the purpose of ensuring public safety, the rules emphasize that law enforcement must adhere to the rule of law and that no security aim may justify circumventing constitutional protections.

Key Provisions Examined by the Court

Several PUCL sections that were under dispute were the primary focus of the Supreme Court. According to Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, FIR registration and transmission are required under paragraph 31.2 if a police fire results in a fatality. According to paragraph 31.3, an independent investigation must be conducted by a different police station or CID under the direction of a senior officer.

The investigation into every fatality that occurs during an interaction is mandated under paragraph 31.4. According to paragraph 31.13, forensic and ballistic investigation of firearms that have been surrendered is required.

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 31.5, the National or State Human Rights Commission must be notified, and paragraph 32 extends these precautions “as far as possible” to situations involving serious injuries. For the sake of fostering openness, accountability, and public trust in law enforcement, these measures are being implemented.

Fundamental Issues before the Court

The appeal brought up two primary concerns: first, whether the claims made by the appellant proved prima facie breaches of the PUCL Guidelines, and second, what corrective actions should be taken in the event that findings of violations were discovered.

There were more fundamental constitutional issues that underpinned these problems. These concerns included the preservation of the right to life and personal liberty as outlined in Article 21, the guarantee of due process safeguards against the excesses of the state, and the maintenance of meaningful access to justice for victims and their families.

When a private citizen seeks restitution on behalf of individuals who are too afraid to contact authorities themselves, the United States Supreme Court likewise dealt with the limits of the jurisdiction of public interest litigation (PIL).

Contentions of the Appellant

In their argument, the appellant’s legal representative said that the state had disregarded every essential protection.

He said that First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed against victims rather than police officers, that independent investigations were little more than routine exercises conducted by the same station, that magisterial inquiries did not include forensic or ballistic testing, and that the next of kin of victims were not given the appropriate notification.

He maintained that a practice of justifying shootings as “escape attempts” was a sign of premeditation since it was constant. In addition, he said that the majority of investigations were either prejudiced or incomplete, and that charge sheets, which were only submitted in five out of forty-one instances involving fatalities, remained unavailable, which led to the concern that they targeted victims rather than police.

Contentions of the State

All fatal interactions were handled in accordance with the PUCL Guidelines, according to the state’s stated position. The study said that separate First Information results (FIRs) were filed, independent investigations and magisterial inquiries were carried out, and forensic results were received, although in some instances, after the fact.

When it came to situations involving grave injuries, the state highlighted that it allowed for flexibility “as far as possible.”

It maintained that First Information Reports (FIRs) had to be lodged at the police station that was responsible for the jurisdiction, and that an outside agency should only be chosen in circumstances where there was clear evidence of prejudice. It was stated in the affidavits of the state that charge sheets were filed in 125 instances and that forwarding reports were filed in 23 additional cases, with 23 cases still being investigated.

Court’s Analysis of Compliance

Following an examination of the affidavits and documents, the Supreme Court made the observation that the majority of the cases had already been registered with the FIR and early investigations had been started.

Nevertheless, it was observed that there was a lack of uniformity in the adherence to magisterial inquiries and delays in forensic analysis. It was emphasized that the safeguards for procedures must be relevant and timely.

The court determined that the appellant’s assertions of complete non-compliance were, in many cases, hypothetical. This was due to the fact that the records provided by the state demonstrated that formal efforts had been made.

Inconsistencies, on the other hand, need further investigation in order to guarantee consistent adherence to the PUCL framework. The Court came to the conclusion that even in the absence of evidence of mala fide, the basic right to life required strict application of these protections.

PIL Jurisdiction and Victims’ Locus

The broadened locus of public interest litigation was affirmed by the Court, which acknowledged the need of citizen engagement in situations when victims lack the insight or emotional fortitude to take action.

At the same time, it issued a warning against issuing broad orders that might potentially violate individual rights without the consent of the victims.

In accordance with the fundamental principles of a fair trial and Article 21 due process, the Court expressed its emphasis on the need of providing victims and their families with a meaningful chance to participate.

Role of Human Rights Commissions

In a decision that highlighted the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that National and State Human Rights Commissions are independent watchdogs that have the authority to investigate, subpoena documents, and suggest remedies.

The AHRC had improperly stopped its suo-motu investigation, and the appellant’s public interest litigation had caused the statutory forum to be marginalized, according to the report. In order to rectify this situation, the court reversed the disposal decision issued by the AHRC and ordered its restoration in order to conduct an impartial and prompt investigation.

Directions Issued by the Court

A detailed set of guidelines was mapped out by the Supreme Court. A public notice urging victims and their families to come forward was to be published in a major vernacular newspaper and a national English daily newspaper, as mandated by the American Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

To guarantee that legal assistance is provided at no cost, the notification must provide the contact information for the District and Taluka Legal Services Authorities. The American Human Rights Commission is obligated to ensure confidentiality and implement steps to safeguard witnesses.

Additionally, it has the authority to pick retired or current police with unquestionable integrity to carry out in-depth investigations. It is necessary for the state of Assam to give complete cooperation in terms of logistics, finances, and administration, as well as to make records accessible and to enable the availability of forensic resources.

It is the responsibility of the Assam State Legal Services Authority to take measures to guarantee that affected persons get legal aid, and the appellant may represent victims who employ his services.

Conclusion

In its ruling in the case of Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder vs. State of Assam, the Supreme Court, via Justice Surya Kant, reiterated that accountability and efficient policing are not incompatible with one another.

Through the incorporation of the PUCL Guidelines into India’s human-rights architecture, the Supreme Court of India was able to protect the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty while simultaneously honoring the duties of other institutions.

The decision highlights the fact that procedural protections in encounter cases are not only formalities but rather crucial bulwarks against the excess of the state inside the system. Its directions, which have been carefully designed, aim to increase openness and restore public trust in law enforcement. This will ensure that India’s constitutional democracy continues to act in accordance with its fundamental foundational principles.