PIL urges Supreme Court to put focus on inaccurate state reports of encounter killings, demands justice
Last Updated on October 3, 2023 by News Desk
The PIL petitioner has questioned the government’s claims in the state’s status report regarding police encounters in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner’s attorney, Vishal Tiwari, argued that state police officials often praise encounter killings as accomplishments, encouraging arbitrary and unlawful behaviour.
Tiwari questioned the government’s position that interactions with police are proper exercises in self-defense and argued that police should not use excessive or retaliatory force, especially when the other side is weaker. He argued that extrajudicial killings or executions occur when the state employs excessive or retaliatory force that results in death.
Tiwari claimed that the state had willfully misled the court by failing to correctly disclose important information and that the state was required to respond in accordance with the court’s order from August 11th. Despite the 183 encounter occurrences mentioned in Tiwari’s writ petition, only seven encounter incidents were mentioned in the state’s report, indicating that the state did not completely abide by the court decision.
The petitioner argues that the respondents have not provided a status report or response to the 183 encounter killings, which could be fake and not in compliance with Supreme Court guidelines. He also claims that the respondent misinterpreted the Chauhan Commission report as giving a clean chit to the police in the Kanpur/Bikru encounter killings of 2020. The petitioner argues that the report’s conclusion that the commission prepared it without any evidence contradicting the police version is sufficient to raise a presumption of evidence.
Atiq Ahmed’s brother, Khalid Azim@Ashraf, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition for safety and protection for Ashraf during transit in police custody. The current status report fails to address this crucial fact or explain the state’s steps to protect Ashraf. Concerns are raised about the independence of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the recurring pattern of encounter killings, where police claim to have received tips and use lethal force. The Supreme Court’s position in Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand (2012) states that encounter killings are unjustified and amount to “state-sponsored terrorism.”
Judge S. Ravindra Bhat will hear the case tomorrow, considering Aisha Noori’s plea for a court-monitored investigation into her brother’s deaths in April 2023, along with Tiwari’s PIL.
Case Title: Vsihal tiwari vs. UOI and Aisha Noori vs. UOI
Written by: Srijan Raj @raaj_srijan
