EXTRA JUDICIAL EXECUTION VICTIM FAMILIES ASSOCIATION (EEVFAM) & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 08-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 909 
EXTRA JUDICIAL EXECUTION VICTIM FAMILIES 
A 
ASSOCIATION (EEVFAM) & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No.129Of2012) 
JULYOS,2016 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: 
Arts.32, 226 - Maintainability of the writ petition - Allegation 
in writ petition that fake encounters or extra judicial executions 
carried out by Manipur police and the armed forces of the Union -
Held: In matters concerning gross violations of human rights, 
constitutional court should adopt an 'open door policy' - The 
instant case is not an ordinary case of a police complaint or a simple 
case of an FIR not being registered - This case involves allegations 
that the law enforcement authorities, that is, the Manipur Police 
along with the armed forces acting in aid of the civil power are 
themselves perpetrators of gross human rights violations - Possible 
grave injustice might be caused to the petitioners, the next of the 
kin of the victims alleged to have been killed in fake encounter or 
victims of alleged extra-judicial executions, if they are precluded, 
at the threshold, from approaching Supreme Court u/Art.32 of the 
Constitution - Therefore, petition u!Art.32 is held maintainable . . 
Art.32 - Prayer in writ petition for appropriate order for setting 
up a special investigation team (SIT) of police officers from outside 
the State of Manipur to investigate the instances of alleged extra 
iudicial executions and thereafter prosecute the offendors in 
accordance with law - Held: An allegation of excessive force 
resulting in the death of any person by Manipur Police or the armed 
forces in Manipur must be thorougly enquired into - However. for 
the time being, matter left open for decision on who should conduct 
the inquiry - Of the 62 cases that the petitioners have documented, 
their representative and the Amicus are directed to prepare a simple 
tabular statement indicating whether in each case a judicial enquiry 
or an inquiry by the NHRC or an inquiry under the Commissions of 
Inquiry Act, 1952 has been held and the result of the inquiry and 
whether any FIR or complaint or petition has been filed by the next 
of kin of the deceased - The NHRC is requested to render assist~nce 
909 
B 
c 
D 
E . 
F 
G 
H 
910 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
to the Amicus in this regard - The representative of the petitioners 
and the Amicus would revisit the remaining cases (1528 minus 62) 
and carry out an identical exercise - The grievance of the NHRC 
that it has become a toothless tiger shall be considered, ajier hearing 
the Union of India and the NHRC on this important issue -
The 
nature of the guidelines issued by the NHRC - whether they are 
binding or only advisory shall also be considered - Armed Forces 
(Special Powers) Act, 1958. 
Art.352 - Amendment of Art.352 by Constitution (Forty-fourth 
Amendment) Act, 1978 whereby words 'armed rebellion 'substituted 
for words 'internal disturbance' in clause (1) of Art. 352 - Legislative 
intent behind the amendment - Held: The intention was to limit the 
invocation of emergency powers u/Art.352 only to more serious 
situation where there is a threat to the security of the country or 
part thereof on account of war or external aggression or armed 
rebellion and to exclude the invocation of emergency powers in. 
situations of internal disturbance which are of lesser gravity -
However, proclamation of emergency could be made in the event of 
internal disturbance (not covered by Art.352) by resort to Art.356. 
Arts.352, 356 - 'armed rebellion' and 'internal disturbance' -
Distinction between - Discussed. 
Art.355; Seventh Schedule; List l; Entry 2A - Deployment of 
armed forces to aid civil power to tackle human rights violation in 
Manipur - Held: It is the duty of Union Government to protect State 
from external aggression and internal disturbance - The public order 
situation in Manipur is, at best, an internal disturbance - There is 
no threat to the security of the country or a part thereof either by 
war or an external aggression or an armed rebellion - For tackling 
the internal disturbance, the armed forces of the Union can be 
deployed in aid of the civil power- The armed forces do not supplant 
the civil administration but only supplement it. 
Use of excessive force or retaliation and right of self defence 
- Distinction between - Held: The right of self-defence or private 
defence is 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.