The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) from outside the state to probe an alleged fake encounter during an anti-Naxal operation. The petition was filed by the family of a deceased individual, who was reportedly involved in Naxal activities and had not been in contact with his family since 2007. The petitioner alleged that the deceased was apprehended, tortured, and extrajudicially killed by the police during the operation. The High Court, however, found these allegations unsubstantiated and held that the request for an SIT probe lacked merit.
The matter came before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru. The bench carefully examined the petition, the state’s response, and available evidence. The petitioners sought the establishment of an SIT from outside Chhattisgarh, arguing that an independent investigation was necessary due to alleged procedural lapses and human rights violations during the encounter. They contended that local authorities could not conduct an impartial inquiry, given that the deceased was killed during a state-led anti-Naxal operation.
The Court noted that anti-Naxal operations form part of routine counter-insurgency measures undertaken by both state and central security forces. Such operations involve significant risk to law enforcement personnel and often take place in hostile and inaccessible regions. The Court emphasized that subjecting all anti-Naxal encounters to SIT probes would interfere with legitimate policing powers and undermine the federal structure, setting a problematic precedent inconsistent with established legal norms.
Further, the bench observed that the deceased had a long criminal history spanning multiple states, including Chhattisgarh, Telangana, and Maharashtra, and was involved in numerous violent incidents. The allegations of torture and extrajudicial killing were based on conjecture rather than concrete evidence. The State’s response provided detailed accounts of the deceased’s activities, the operational plan, and procedural compliance, none of which were effectively challenged by the petitioners.
The Court also reviewed the available forensic evidence. It was noted that the injuries sustained by the deceased did not conclusively indicate torture or extrajudicial killing. Additionally, the presence of firearms, ammunition, and nitrate residues in the deceased’s hands suggested active participation in the encounter. The bench clarified that the absence of police casualties does not automatically imply that the encounter was fabricated.
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish any credible basis for a fresh investigation by an external SIT. The Court found that the State had adhered to procedural safeguards as required by the Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission. The allegations were speculative and lacked substantiation. Consequently, the request for an SIT probe was denied, and the High Court upheld the legitimacy of the anti-Naxal operation carried out by the security forces.
This judgment reinforces the principle that routine anti-Naxal operations cannot be subjected to independent investigation unless there is compelling evidence of procedural violations or human rights breaches. The Court emphasized the need to balance accountability with operational autonomy for law enforcement agencies engaged in high-risk counter-insurgency activities. By denying the petition, the Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the integrity of procedural safeguards while protecting the functional independence of security forces in anti-Naxal operations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.