IMPHAL| July 14
The Attorney General (AG) representing the Union of India and others had submitted various arguments in regard to the fake encounters investigations and further registration of First Information Reports (FIR) against the Army and para-military forces.
The Supreme Court had observed that investigations regarding extra-judicial killings could have been done timely by the state. The submissions and considerations are reproduced partly below.
Submissions and considerations
AG- Some of the incidents are of considerable vintage at this point of time and it may not be appropriate to re-open the issues of investigation.
SC- We are not in agreement. If a crime has been committed, a crime which involves the death of a person who is possibly innocent cannot be overlooked only because of a lapse of time. It was the obligation of the state to have suo-motu conducted a thorough inquiry at the appropriate time and soon after each incident took place. Merely because the state has not taken any action and has allowed time to go by, it cannot take advantage of the delay to scuttle an inquiry.
AG- There were local pressures and the ground level situation was such that it would not be surprising if the inquiries were biased in favour of the citizens and against the state.
SC- The submission is noted and rejected. If there has been a breakdown of the rule of law in Manipur, government of India was under obligation to take necessary steps. To suggest that all inquiries were unfair and motivated is casting very serious aspersions on the independence of the authorities in Manipur at that point of time, which we don’t think is at all warranted.
AG- The next of kin of the deceased has not approached this court and there is no reason why we should entertain a petition filed by a third party. There is no reason for this court to take up the issue at the instance of a third party.
SC- We reject this submission…the next of kin could not access justice even if the local courts and petitioners have taken up their cause in public interest. Our constitutional jurisprudence does not permit us to shut the door on such persons and our constitutional obligation requires us to give justice and succour to the next of kin of the deceased.
AG- Compensation has been paid to the next of kin for the unfortunate deaths and therefore it may be not necessary to proceed further in this matter.
SC- We cannot agree. Compensation has been awarded to the next of kin for the agony they have suffered and to enable them to immediately tide over their loss and for their rehabilitation. This cannot override the law of the land otherwise all heinous crimes would get settled through payment of monetary compensation. Our constitutional jurisprudence does not permit this and we certainly encourage or countenance such a view.
Read more / Original news source: http://www.ifp.co.in/item/1887-compensation-cannot-override-law-sc