G.S.Mani vs Union Of India on 12 December, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna
Case No: Writ Petition Criminal No- 348/2019
Petitioner: G. S. Mani
Respondent: Union Of India
Facts of the Case:
G.S. Mani vs Union of India (Writ Petition Criminal No. 348/2019):
This case, heard on 12 December 2019 by a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, was filed by G.S. Mani, a practicing advocate, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought judicial intervention regarding the alleged extrajudicial killing of four individuals by the Telangana Police, following their arrest for the alleged rape and murder of a young veterinarian in Hyderabad. The case highlights serious concerns about the rule of law, extrajudicial practices, and accountability in law enforcement.
Background:
1. The Crime:
– A veterinarian was brutally gang-raped and murdered in Hyderabad in late November 2019, sparking massive public outrage and protests across the country. The police arrested four suspects who were alleged to have committed the heinous crime.
– The crime’s gruesome nature and the delay in justice for sexual violence cases had led to a highly charged atmosphere, with demands for swift and severe punishment.
2. Encounter Killing:
– On 6 December 2019, the Telangana Police reported that all four accused were killed in an encounter. According to the police, the accused attempted to escape custody while being taken to the crime scene for a reconstruction of events. The police claimed that the accused had attacked them, leaving the officers with no option but to retaliate in self-defence, resulting in the deaths.
3. Public Reaction:
– The encounter received mixed reactions. While a significant section of the public and media hailed the police action as “instant justice,” legal experts, human rights advocates, and others raised concerns about the legality and constitutionality of the killings.
– The encounter sparked debates on vigilante justice and the role of law enforcement, questioning whether the killings were staged to appease public anger.
Petition by G.S. Mani:
1. Legal Concerns:
– The petitioner raised serious concerns that the encounter was a pre-planned extra judicial killing, violating the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
The petitioner argued that the rule of law must prevail, and no one, including the police, should be allowed to bypass legal procedures, regardless of public pressure.
2. Relief Sought:
– The petitioner requested a court-monitored investigation into the encounter killings by an independent agency such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
– The petition emphasized the need for impartial scrutiny to determine whether the encounter killings were genuine acts of self-defence or staged extrajudicial executions.
Key Issue:
The central issue in the case was whether the encounter was a legitimate police action or a violation of fundamental rights, warranting an independent investigation to uphold the sanctity of due process and prevent law enforcement abuse of power.
This case encapsulated the tension between the public demand for swift justice the principles of fair trial and the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution.
Judgment in G.S. Mani vs. Union of India (Writ Petition Criminal No. 348/2019)
Date of Judgment: 12 December 2019
Bench: Chief Justice of India S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna
Summary of the Judgment:
The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling concerning the contentious encounter killings of four individuals implicated in the Hyderabad rape and murder case. The bench reviewed the petitioner’s application, G.S. Mani, filed under Article 32, which sought an impartial investigation into the alleged extrajudicial killings carried out by the Telangana Police.
Key Directions and Observations:
1. Formation of a Judicial Inquiry Commission:
The court mandated the establishment of a three-member Judicial Commission to investigate the encounter killings. The commission was instructed to:
Be chaired by a former judge of the Supreme Court (Justice V.S. Sirpurkar was subsequently appointed). Include two additional distinguished members: a former High Court judge and a senior police officer. Complete its investigation within six months and submit a comprehensive report to the court.
2. Rationale for Judicial Inquiry:
The court highlighted that permitting extrajudicial killings to occur without scrutiny undermines the rule of law and the constitutional framework. It reaffirmed that even accused individuals are entitled to fair trial rights as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that public outrage, while understandable, cannot justify the circumvention of due process of law.
3. No Direct Monitoring by the Supreme Court:
The bench chose not to directly oversee the investigation, thereby granting the judicial inquiry commission full autonomy to ascertain the truth. It underscored that police actions, while critical for public safety, must remain within constitutional boundaries.
4. Suspension of Parallel Investigations:
The court instructed that all concurrent inquiries, including those initiated by the Telangana State Government, be temporarily suspended until the judicial commission has completed its report.
5. Interim Measures:
The court directed the Telangana Government to preserve all evidence related to the encounter, including forensic evidence, autopsy reports, and police records. It advised against any interference with or destruction of such evidence.
Legal and Moral Reflections by the Court:
Balancing Public Sentiment with the Rule of Law: The judgment acknowledged the public anger and outrage surrounding the heinous crime but emphasized that justice cannot be achieved through shortcuts. The court articulated, “Swift justice cannot mean denial of due process and fairness in the criminal justice system.”
Role of the Police: While the court recognized the police’s essential role in ensuring public safety, it condemned any form of vigilantism or excessive use of force. The police are required to operate within the legal framework and adhere to the guidelines established in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) regarding encounters.
Outcome of G.S Mani vs Union of India [2019]:
The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights. The establishment of the Judicial Commission will facilitate a transparent, impartial, and thorough investigation into the encounter killings, thereby setting a precedent for addressing similar cases involving allegations of extrajudicial actions by law enforcement agencies. This judgment highlights the importance of accountability of law enforcement agencies in a democratic society, even amidst public calls for prompt justice.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
