SC directs CBI to investigate Manipur encounter killings

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) will investigate the Manipur encounter killings that were allegedly perpetrated by the police and the army the Supreme Court ruled on Friday. 

The top court directed CBI director Alok Verma to furnish names for the five-member SIT that will investigate the 83 contentious cases. “The Director of the CBI is directed to nominate a group of five officers to go through the records of the cases mentioned, lodge necessary FIRs and to complete the investigations into the same by 31st December 2017 and prepare charge sheets, wherever necessary.”

“We do not think it appropriate to associate any officer of the Manipur Police particularly since in some of the cases the role of the Manipur Police itself has been adversely commented upon,” the court added. “It would be inappropriate for us to depend upon the Manipur Police to carry out an impartial investigation more particularly when some of its own personnel are said to be involved in the fake encounters and the Manipur Police has not registered any FIR at the instance of the next of the kin of the deceased.”

The CBI is expected to submit a compliance report in this matter by January 2018, when the court will hear the matter.

The apex court delivered its judgment on a petition filed by the Extra-Judicial Execution Victims’ Families Association (EVAM), comprising of wives and mothers of people allegedly killed in fake encounters by security forces in Manipur. EVAM alleged 1,528 encounters took place in the last few decades. In its 2016 judgment, the SC held that armed forces cannot use excessive force even in areas under Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).

The bench took note of submissions of the Amicus Curiae report prepared by Menaka Guruswamy who suggested that only an independent investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) will lend credibility to the proceedings in the "extra-judicial killings by the security forces" in Manipur.

Making a strong case for a trial by a special court constituted by the SC, it pointed out the "delayed justice" and "gross misuse" of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in the state.

“We have perused the tabular statement given with regard to cases with written complaints, oral complaints and eye-witness accounts as well as family claimed cases but find that apart from a simple allegation being made, no substantive steps appear to have been taken by either lodging a First Information Report (FIR) or by filing a writ petition in the concerned High Court or making a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), a bench comprising of Justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit said after perusing the report.

Guruswamy's report, compiled from the proceedings of 265 cases of extra-judicial killings in Manipur, looked at evidence from high court judgments, judicial inquiries, and NHRC reports, noting that monetary compensation in several cases signified the state's apathy and ensured that the killings continued unabated. Guruswamy added that Manipur submitted 18 reports in all, including 11 Judicial Inquiry Reports (JIR) and seven Commission of Inquiry Reports (CIR).

In her report, she added that this was symptomatic of the “state's disinterest, the impunity enjoyed by the Armed Forces”. “It seems that the Constitution has not reached Manipur,” she had said during a hearing in April. 

The court rejected the Attorney General’s submissions that since the incidents were of considerable vintage, it would not be appropriate to re-open the issues for investigation.  

“If a crime has been committed, a crime which involves the death of a person who is possibly innocent, it cannot be over-looked only because of a lapse of time. What is also not acceptable is that the law having been laid down by the Constitution Bench, it was the obligation of the State to have suo motu conducted a thorough inquiry at the appropriate time and soon after each incident took place. Merely because the State has not taken any action and has allowed time to go by, it cannot take advantage of the delay to scuttle an inquiry,” the court said.

“Access to justice is certainly a human right and it has been given a special place in our constitutional scheme where free legal aid and advice is provided to a large number of people in the country. The primary reason is that for many of the deprived sections of society, access to justice is only a dream,” the court said refuting all objections from the Centre.

NHRC reduced to a toothless tiger: SC

In its judgement, the Supreme Court said that the NHRC has been reduced to a toothless tiger. “Unless the communications and Guidelines laid down by the NHRC (which have been prepared after wide ranging and detailed consultations) are adhered to, the respect and dignity due to the dead and the human rights of all us will remain only on paper.”

The top court made it clear that the Central Government is under an obligation (‘shall make available’) to provide adequate officers and staff so that the NHRC can perform its functions efficiently. “The difficulties faced by the NHRC due to inadequate officers and staff and something to worry about from a human rights perspective,” the court said.