Manipur Police Encounters Case: Supreme Court Upholds Accountability in Alleged Extra-Judicial Killings

The case of Lourembam Deben Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. revolves around a sensitive and controversial issue regarding allegations of extra-judicial killings in Manipur by the state police and security forces. This case stems from the earlier judgment in Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) vs. Union of India, where the Supreme Court had mandated an investigation into alleged fake encounters in the state.

The present petitions were filed by police personnel of Manipur, seeking to quash certain oral observations made by the Supreme Court, which they claimed violated their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, they sought a stay on the ongoing investigation into extra-judicial executions in Manipur. This legal battle highlights the tension between national security concerns and human rights accountability.

Background of the Dispute

The roots of this case trace back to allegations that over 1,500 people were killed in extra-judicial executions in Manipur between 2000 and 2012. These allegations were brought before the Supreme Court in the EEVFAM case, which led to a landmark ruling in 2016. The Court had then directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate 98 cases of alleged fake encounters involving the police and armed forces.

However, some members of the Manipur Police, facing possible prosecution, challenged the Court’s directions. They contended that the observations made by the Court affected their morale and created an unfair bias against them.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Manipur Police Personnel)

The police officers argued that the observations made by the Supreme Court during hearings created a perception of bias against them.
They contended that these remarks impacted their dignity and professional reputation.
They sought a stay on the ongoing investigation, claiming that the probe was unfairly targeting law enforcement personnel engaged in counter-insurgency operations.
They also demanded that the case be transferred to another bench to ensure an impartial hearing.

Arguments by the Respondent (Union of India and EEVFAM)

The respondents maintained that the investigation was crucial to uphold the rule of law and ensure accountability for possible human rights violations.
They contended that no undue bias was created against the petitioners and that judicial oversight of the investigation was necessary to prevent injustice.
They further argued that seeking recusal of the judges based on oral remarks was a strategy to delay proceedings.
The Attorney General of India, representing the government, supported the need for a fair trial but opposed the claim that the judiciary was biased.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that:

No valid reason for judicial recusal: The request for transferring the case to another bench was rejected, with the Court affirming its impartiality.
Investigations must continue: The Court reiterated that human rights violations must be investigated, regardless of the identity of the accused.
National security does not justify impunity: While acknowledging the challenges of counter-insurgency operations, the Court emphasized that security forces cannot act outside the framework of the law.
No stay on ongoing probe: The Court refused to halt the CBI investigation, asserting that judicial oversight was necessary to ensure due process.

The Court noted:

“The continuing mandamus must go on and the independence and integrity of the SIT and the judges dealing with the final reports/charge-sheets must be maintained.”

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s role in upholding human rights while balancing security concerns. By refusing to halt the investigation, the Supreme Court has signaled that allegations of extra-judicial killings cannot be ignored, even when they involve security personnel. The ruling underscores the principle that no individual or institution is above the law, ensuring accountability in cases of alleged human rights violations.

This case serves as a precedent in balancing the demands of national security with the imperatives of justice, reinforcing the principle that human rights cannot be compromised, even in conflict-ridden regions.

Petitioner Name: Lourembam Deben Singh & Ors..
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Place Of Incident: Manipur.
Judgment Date: 12-11-2018.

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

Download Judgment: Lourembam Deben Sing vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-11-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Terrorist Activities
See all petitions in Judgment by Madan B. Lokur
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category