LexARIF MD. YEASIN JWADDER versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 mecha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.