Devinder Singh vs. State of Punjab: Supreme Court Rules on Sanction Requirement for Police Officers in Fake Encounter Cases

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated April 25, 2016, delivered a significant ruling in Devinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab through CBI. The case addressed the issue of whether prosecution of police officers in alleged fake encounter cases required prior sanction from the Central Government under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983.

Background of the Case

The appellants were police officers in Punjab during the 1980s and 1990s, a period marked by rising terrorist activities and law enforcement challenges. The prosecution alleged that four persons were killed in a staged encounter by the police on July 22, 1993. The case was initiated based on a complaint by Chaman Lal, father of one of the deceased. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation and filed a charge sheet in the Special Court at Patiala.

The accused police officers argued that their actions were in the line of duty while combating terrorism. They contended that under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, prior sanction from the Central Government was mandatory before initiating prosecution. However, the CBI had obtained sanction only from the State Government.

Legal Issues

• Whether the accused police officers required prior sanction from the Central Government under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983.
• Whether the alleged fake encounter was an act committed in the course of official duty, warranting protection under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Arguments by the Petitioners

• The accused officers argued that their actions were undertaken as part of their duty to maintain law and order during a period of extreme terrorist activity.
• They claimed that the deceased individuals were involved in criminal activities, justifying the police action.
• The officers contended that the prosecution was initiated without the requisite sanction from the Central Government, rendering it invalid.
• They relied on various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the necessity of prior sanction before prosecuting public servants for actions performed in the line of duty.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The CBI and the complainants argued that the alleged encounter was fake and involved custodial deaths.
• They contended that no official duty allowed for extra-judicial killings or torture of suspects.
• The prosecution maintained that cases of fake encounters do not require prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC or the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined multiple legal precedents and statutory provisions and made the following key observations:

• Acts done in the discharge of official duty must have a reasonable connection with the duty performed by the public servant.
• Fake encounters and custodial deaths do not qualify as acts performed in official duty and therefore do not warrant protection under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act or Section 197 CrPC.
• The requirement of prior sanction does not apply when the alleged acts constitute grave violations of human rights.
• The Court dismissed the argument that the earlier interim order directing the Central Government to consider granting sanction bound the court in deciding the final outcome.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled against the accused police officers, holding that:

• The prosecution did not require prior sanction from the Central Government.
• The accused police officers would have the opportunity during trial to present evidence that their actions were within the scope of their official duties.
• The trial court was directed to proceed with the case, and the accused could raise the issue of sanction at later stages based on the evidence produced during the trial.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• No Blanket Protection for Fake Encounters: The ruling clarified that extra-judicial killings and custodial deaths do not qualify as acts performed in official duty.
• Sanction Not Always Required: The decision establishes that sanction under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act and Section 197 CrPC is not required for cases involving allegations of fake encounters.
• Opportunity to Prove Official Duty: The accused officers were allowed to present evidence at trial to demonstrate that their actions were legally justified.
• Precedent for Future Cases: The judgment sets a legal benchmark for similar cases involving alleged police excesses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Devinder Singh vs. State of Punjab is a landmark decision on the prosecution of law enforcement officers in fake encounter cases. By ruling that prior sanction is not required for cases involving extra-judicial killings, the Court reinforced the principle that public servants cannot claim immunity for unlawful actions. This decision ensures accountability while allowing accused officers a fair trial to establish their defense.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Devinder Singh & Oth vs State of Punjab thro Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-04-2016-1741854693173.pdf