The Supreme Court of India held in EEVFAM vs Union of India that armed forces and police personnel do not possess absolute immunity from criminal investigation for deaths caused in counter-insurgency operations. The bench established that every allegation of an extra-judicial killing in disturbed areas requires a thorough, independent, and prompt criminal investigation to uphold the rule of law.
Constitutional Mandate and Rule of Law in Disturbed Areas
In this historic Supreme Court judgment on extra judicial killings, a Division Bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit addressed a writ petition concerning 1,528 alleged encounter killings in Manipur. The petition, instituted by the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association alongside human rights organizations, sought judicial intervention to investigate deaths occurring over three decades in areas notified under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958.
The central question before the apex court was whether the deployment of security forces in aid of civil power, or the declaration of an area as disturbed, suspends normal criminal jurisprudence and grants blanket protection against prosecution. The court affirmed that democracy and constitutional governance cannot survive if the state permits uninvestigated deaths under the guise of security operations. The judgment laid down that internal disturbances do not create a state of war where citizens can be treated as enemies of the republic without accountability.
Factual Matrix of the Manipur Encounters
The petitioners presented detailed documentation regarding hundreds of instances where individuals were allegedly picked up by security forces or police commandos and subsequently killed in staged encounters. In many instances, magisterial inquiries, judicial commissions, and reports from the National Human Rights Commission had established prima facie evidence of unlawful killings, yet no criminal investigations or trials had been initiated due to the refusal of statutory sanction under Section 6 of AFSPA.
The respondents, representing the Union of India and state authorities, argued that security personnel operating under hostile conditions against militant groups required substantial protection against vexatious litigation. They asserted that internal military inquiries and court-martial proceedings were sufficient mechanisms for accountability. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that systemic inaction had created an environment of impunity that severely undermined public trust in constitutional institutions.
Judicial Analysis of AFSPA Immunity and Encounter Investigations
The bench engaged in an exhaustive examination of the statutory provisions of AFSPA and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court clarified the scope of AFSPA immunity and encounter investigations, holding that statutory protection under Section 6 of AFSPA applies only to actions taken in good faith in the exercise of powers conferred by the statute. The court ruled that killing an individual in an encounter cannot be presumed to be an act done in the discharge of official duty without a thorough preliminary investigation.
The Supreme Court established that when an encounter death occurs, the police must register a First Information Report (FIR), preserve physical evidence, conduct forensic examinations, and determine whether excessive or retaliatory force was used. If an investigation reveals that force exceeded permissible self-defence, criminal prosecution must proceed in accordance with standard criminal procedure. This principle reinforces equitable access to justice for victims and their surviving families.
Distinction Between Armed Conflict and Internal Security Duties
A critical contribution of the judgment is its careful distinction between international armed conflict and internal security operations. The bench noted that armed forces deployed within Indian territory operate in aid of the civil administration and remain subject to domestic constitutional constraints. Citizens residing in disturbed areas retain their fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court observed that retaliatory lethal force is entirely impermissible in maintaining public order. Even when dealing with suspected insurgents, the primary objective of security forces must be apprehending suspects and bringing them before regular judicial forums. The bench stressed that criminal jurisprudence and constitutional liberties apply equally across all states and union territories, without regional exemptions for disturbed territories.
Independent Fact-Finding and the Hegde Commission Findings
To verify the authenticity of the allegations, the Supreme Court appointed a high-powered commission headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Santosh Hegde, accompanied by former Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh and senior police officer Ajit Lal. The commission conducted detailed on-ground hearings in Manipur, examining witness statements, medical autopsies, ballistics reports, and military logs for six representative sample encounter cases.
The findings of the Hegde Commission were unanimous and striking: in all six examined cases, the encounters were not genuine, the victims did not possess weapons at the time of their deaths, and there was no credible evidence that they were engaged in active armed hostilities. The commission revealed that standard operating procedures were ignored, that local police failed to conduct independent inquiries, and that magisterial inquests were repeatedly suppressed. These concrete factual findings convinced the Supreme Court that widespread extra-judicial executions could not be dismissed as isolated errors or collateral damage of counter-insurgency operations.
Directives for CBI Investigation and Precedential Impact
Building upon the commission findings, the Supreme Court issued definitive directives commanding the preparation of a complete dossier covering every recorded encounter death. In subsequent orders arising from EEVFAM vs Union of India, the apex court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to register First Information Reports, conduct independent investigations, and file final reports before competent criminal courts.
This Manipur fake encounter cases ruling established an enduring precedent for military and police accountability in India. It settled that no uniform shields an officer from criminal liability for unlawful homicide, that the right to truth is an integral component of Article 21, and that state institutions must provide transparent redress for human rights violations. The EEVFAM decision stands as a cornerstone of Indian human rights jurisprudence, reaffirming that the rule of law must govern every corner of the nation.