Role Of Human Rights Bodies In Prosecuting Extrajudicial Killings
🏛️ I. Introduction: Extrajudicial Killings and Human Rights
Extrajudicial killings refer to the unlawful killing of individuals by state actors, particularly law enforcement, without judicial sanction or due process. These acts violate fundamental human rights:
Right to Life (Article 21 of the Indian Constitution; also protected under International Human Rights Law like Article 6 of the ICCPR).
Right to Equality Before Law (Article 14) — no one is above the law, including state authorities.
Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman Treatment — enshrined in UN conventions and recognized in Indian jurisprudence.
Human rights bodies at the national and international levels play a crucial role in:
Investigating violations.
Recommending prosecution or compensation.
Monitoring accountability of state agencies.
In India, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is the primary statutory body, empowered under The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
⚖️ II. Key Case Laws
1. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (PUCL) (1997)
Facts:
PUCL filed a petition regarding encounter killings by police in Maharashtra, alleging that officers killed suspects in staged “encounters.”
Held:
Supreme Court recognized the gravity of extrajudicial killings as a human rights violation.
Directed that all such killings must be investigated by independent authorities, not just by the same police department.
Principle:
Human rights bodies like PUCL or NHRC can highlight cases and prompt judicial scrutiny, ensuring accountability. This established that no extrajudicial killing is immune from investigation.
2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 1 SCC 416)
Facts:
There were increasing reports of custodial deaths in West Bengal. The petitioner sought guidelines to prevent torture and unlawful killings by police.
Held:
The Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines for arrest and detention, including:
Arrest memo at the time of arrest.
Right to inform a relative or friend.
Mandatory medical examination of detainees.
Police officer identification marks during interrogation.
Principle:
The Court explicitly stated that human rights monitoring is essential to prevent extrajudicial killings, and procedural safeguards must be enforced. NHRC or other bodies can use these guidelines to assess violations.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1998)
Facts:
A public interest litigation was filed regarding “fake encounters” in Manipur and Assam, alleging state complicity in killing alleged militants without trial.
Held:
Supreme Court stressed judicial supervision over police action in counter-insurgency operations.
NHRC and courts must ensure investigations are fair and impartial.
Principle:
Human rights bodies act as watchdogs, documenting extrajudicial killings and urging prosecution or administrative action against guilty officers.
4. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006 8 SCC 1)
Facts:
This landmark case dealt with police reforms and measures to ensure accountability for human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings.
Held:
Supreme Court ordered structural reforms to prevent arbitrary action by police:
Establishment of Police Complaints Authorities at state and district levels.
Mandatory human rights oversight for serious crimes committed by law enforcement.
Principle:
Human rights bodies, in coordination with courts, can prosecute or trigger action against law enforcement personnel involved in illegal killings.
5. NHRC v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009)
Facts:
The NHRC took suo motu cognizance of several encounter killings in Andhra Pradesh, alleging violation of constitutional rights.
Held:
Supreme Court and state authorities were reminded that state cannot act above law.
NHRC’s recommendations included:
Registration of FIRs against responsible officers.
Independent investigation and trial under IPC and CrPC.
Compensation to victims’ families.
Principle:
This case demonstrates NHRC’s direct role in initiating prosecution and monitoring investigations for extrajudicial killings, strengthening human rights jurisprudence.
🧭 III. Role of Human Rights Bodies
From the cases above, the key roles of human rights bodies like NHRC, PUCL, and international organizations are:
Monitoring and Reporting: Document and report extrajudicial killings.
Initiating Legal Action: File PILs or petitions for judicial scrutiny.
Ensuring Independent Investigation: Prevent state agencies from self-investigation in cases of unlawful killings.
Recommending Compensation: Victims’ families may receive monetary relief.
Police and Legal Reforms: Influence reforms to prevent future human rights violations (Prakash Singh case).
Judicial Support: Work alongside courts to uphold Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
📘 IV. Conclusion
Extrajudicial killings are a serious violation of human rights and constitutional law. The jurisprudence shows that:
Human rights bodies act as watchdogs, ensuring that state power is not misused.
Courts reinforce these roles by mandating independent investigations, fair trials, and compensation.
Preventive reforms like arrest guidelines and complaint authorities have institutionalized protection against arbitrary state action.
In essence, human rights bodies are the bridge between constitutional guarantees and enforcement, ensuring that no one is above the law, not even law enforcement officers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments