People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. State of Maharashtra (1997)

The death of around 135 alleged criminals through 99 encounters between 1995-1997 by the Mumbai Police, raised questions about its legality, which was addressed in the writ petition filed by PUCL. The Supreme Court reinforced that unlawful killings are a violation of Article 14 and 21 and acknowledging that encounters must not be a tool for arbitrary killings, released some guidelines to ensure transparency and accountability. The directives released by the SC include immediate reporting of the encounter to National or State Human Rights Commission, independent investigation by the CID or any other police team, judicial oversight on the matter, compensating the victim’s family if the encounter is unlawful and publicising it’s details.

Prakash Kadam and Ors. V. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.(2011)

Policemen accused of killing Ramnarayan Gupta raised serious suspicions. The appellants were accused of hiring a private person to eliminate the deceased, making them contract killers. The Supreme Court said that any fake encounter proved against a policeman should be punishable with death, as fake encounters are cold blooded murders by the authorities who are supposed to uphold the law. It rejected the defence of superior orders, establishing that police officers committing fake encounters will be prosecuted like any other individual.

Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam (2025)

This case revolves around allegations against the Assam Police, accused of fake encounters, resulting in the violation of Human Rights. A potential violation of Article 21 and 22 was observed, raising questions on the credibility of these encounters. While the petition was dismissed by the High Court, stating that such matters cannot be upheld on the basis of some vague assertions, however, it reinforced the importance of guidelines recommended in PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra, and directed an independent inquiry into the allegations.

Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India (2016)

The allegation that over 1500 persons were killed during encounters by the armed forces were raised by EEVFAM, the group comprising the family members of the victims, deeming the act unlawful. A commission appointed by the SC found that many of these encounters were unlawful. The Supreme Court held that unlawful killings are a violation of Article 21, and that AFSPA cannot escape any form of investigations. Excessive force used during counter insurgencies will not be excused and dismissed.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)

While this case does not specifically deal with fake encounter, it deals with custodial death. A mother approaching the Supreme Court alleging custodial death of her son, violating his constitutional right, raised questions on if the state is liable for custodial deaths and tortures. The Supreme Court declared that custodial deaths are a direct violation of right to life under Article 21, and constitutional courts should award public law compensation independently of criminal prosecution or civil damages. This case also built a foundation for encounters.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.