Summary and Analysis of Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder vs. State of Assam & Ors. (2025 INSC 785)

Case Details

• Citation: 2025 INSC 785

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Judges: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

• Appellant: Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder

• Respondents: State of Assam and Others

• Key Legal Provision: Guidelines from People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635.

Background and Issues

1. Factual Background:

• The appellant challenged the Gauhati High Court’s dismissal of a PIL alleging 171 fake police encounters in Assam (May 2021–August 2022), resulting in 56 deaths (including 4 custodial deaths) and 145 injuries.

• The PIL sought:

• Records of encounters.

• FIRs against erring police officials.

• Independent investigations per PUCL guidelines.

• The High Court dismissed the PIL, terming it "premature" and based on "vague assertions," but allowed access to legally permissible documents.

1. Key Allegations by Appellant:

• Non-compliance with PUCL guidelines:

• FIRs registered against victims, not police officials.

• Investigations conducted by the same police station, lacking independence.

• Absence of mandatory magisterial inquiries and ballistic/forensic reports.

• Systemic bias: Similar modus operandi (claims of "self-defence" during escape attempts) raised suspicions of premeditated encounters.

1. State’s Defense:

• FIRs were duly registered; investigations were ongoing (charge sheets filed in 125/171 cases).

• PUCL guidelines were followed "as far as possible"; independent probes were unnecessary without prima facie evidence of bias.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Prima Facie Violations of PUCL Guidelines:

• The Court noted procedural lapses, including delayed forensic reports and inconsistent magisterial inquiries, but found no conclusive evidence of systemic non-compliance.

• Emphasized that partial adherence to guidelines (e.g., belated ballistic reports) undermines public trust in the rule of law.

1. Locus Standi of Appellant:

• Upheld the appellant’s standing as a PIL petitioner, recognizing that victims’ families might fear retaliation or lack resources to seek justice.

• Cautioned against "broad-brush directives" without individual case scrutiny.

1. Role of Human Rights Commissions:

• Criticized the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) for disposing of the case prematurely due to pending litigation.

• Reiterated the NHRC/AHRC’s statutory duty to investigate human rights violations independently.

Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court and AHRC orders, directing:

1. Reinvestigation by AHRC:

• Independent inquiry into all 171 encounters, with confidentiality for victims/witnesses.

• Public notices in national and vernacular newspapers to invite victim participation.

1. State Cooperation:

• Assam must provide logistical/financial support, access to records, and forensic resources.

1. Legal Aid:

• Assam State Legal Services Authority (ASLSA) to offer free legal assistance to victims’ families.

1. Monitoring:

• AHRC may engage retired/serving police officers (unconnected to cases) for impartial probes.

Final Outcome:

Appeal allowed; AHRC-directed inquiry ordered to ensure justice for victims while balancing law enforcement imperatives.

Conclusion:

The judgment underscores:

• Constitutional primacy of Article 21 (right to life) and zero tolerance for extrajudicial killings.

• Procedural sanctity: Strict adherence to PUCL guidelines is non-negotiable to prevent impunity.

• Institutional accountability: Human Rights Commissions must act as proactive safeguards against state excesses.