The Supreme Court of India in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) and Another v. Union of India and Another held that security personnel operating in disturbed areas under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 do not enjoy blanket immunity from criminal prosecution for extrajudicial killings. The division bench ruled that the use of excessive or retaliatory force by armed forces resulting in death is impermissible under constitutional law and mandates immediate independent investigation regardless of whether the deceased was an insurgent or terrorist.
Factual Matrix and Allegations of Extrajudicial Killings in Manipur
The petitioner association, representing the families of victims of alleged encounter killings in Manipur, approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. In the extra judicial execution victim families association judgment proceedings, the petitioners compiled a detailed dossier documenting 1,528 instances of alleged fake encounters manipuri human rights supreme court scrutiny carried out by the Manipur Police and central security forces between 1979 and 2012. The petition highlighted persistent human rights abuses, arbitrary detentions, and custodial executions committed under the protective umbrella of counter-insurgency operations.
The petitioners contended that security personnel routinely claimed statutory immunity to prevent the registration of regular First Information Reports and block independent criminal investigations. The Union of India and state authorities resisted the petition, arguing that Manipur was a notified disturbed area experiencing severe armed insurgency, where security personnel were engaged in an internal disturbance versus armed conflict situation against hostile groups. The respondents argued that judicial scrutiny of counter-insurgency actions would demoralize security forces and compromise national security.
Constitutional Architecture and Limits of AFSPA Powers
A division bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit examined the statutory structure of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 in light of Part III of the Constitution. Section 4(a) of AFSPA authorizes an officer of the armed forces to fire upon or use force, even to the causing of death, against any person acting in contravention of laws or orders prohibiting assemblies or carrying weapons in a disturbed area, after giving due warning.
Section 6 of AFSPA provides that no prosecution, suit, or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of powers conferred by the Act. The Supreme Court addressed the legal issue of section 6 afspa immunity limits to determine whether these provisions create an absolute shield against criminal accountability when lethal force is deployed.
Internal Disturbance Versus Armed Conflict and the Rule of Law
The Supreme Court firmly rejected the submission that an internal disturbance or widespread insurgency equates to an international war where normal criminal laws are suspended. The bench held that even in areas declared disturbed under Section 3 of AFSPA, the armed forces operate in aid of civil power and remain subject to the Constitution of India.
Delivering the afspa excessive force supreme court ruling, the court declared that an alleged militant, terrorist, or insurgent remains a citizen entitled to the protections of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to life guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life except according to procedure established by law. The deployment of lethal force is permissible only when strictly necessary for self-defense or maintaining public order, subject to the doctrine of proportionality. If a civilian or suspect is killed in an encounter, an independent inquiry must determine whether the use of force was justified or constituted an extrajudicial execution.
Rejection of Blanket Sanction and Mandatory Investigation
The bench analyzed the requirement of central government sanction under Section 6 of AFSPA. The court observed that Section 6 cannot be used as an administrative roadblock to prevent even the registration of an FIR or the conduct of an initial criminal investigation. The requirement of sanction arises only at the stage of taking cognizance by a criminal court, not during the investigative phase.
The Supreme Court emphasized that families of victims possess an inviolable right to know the truth regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of their relatives. Paying financial compensation or monetary relief does not extinguish the state's sovereign obligation to identify wrongdoers and enforce criminal liability through regular judicial processes.
Core Legal Principles Laid Down by the Supreme Court
The judgment established definitive constitutional benchmarks regarding military operations and human rights in disturbed regions:
- No Absolute Immunity for Armed Forces: Security personnel operating under AFSPA are not immune from criminal inquiry when excessive or retaliatory force causes death.
- Primacy of Article 21: Every citizen, including persons suspected of militancy or unlawful activities, retains the fundamental right to life and fair procedure under the Constitution.
- Duty to Register FIR and Investigate: Every encounter resulting in loss of life requires the registration of a regular FIR and a prompt, transparent investigation by an independent agency.
- Sanction Operates at Cognizance Stage: Section 6 of AFSPA does not prohibit the registration of criminal complaints or conduct of police investigations into encounter deaths.
- Monetary Relief Is No Substitute for Justice: Payment of financial compensation cannot absolve state authorities from their duty to prosecute unlawful executions.
Procedural Guidance for Civil Rights Litigation
Human rights advocates and legal practitioners handling custodial violence and encounter litigation should incorporate key procedural practices:
- Meticulous Evidentiary Documentation: Applications seeking judicial inquiries into encounter deaths must compile contemporaneous medical reports, ballistic findings, and independent eyewitness statements.
- Challenging Refusal of FIR Registration: Where police authorities decline to register FIRs citing statutory immunity, petitioners must cite Supreme Court mandates under Article 32 and Article 226 to enforce immediate investigation.
- Separating Investigation from Sanction Objections: Legal pleadings must clearly demonstrate that investigation proceeds independently of executive sanction until the stage of filing the final police report.