Legal Accountability For Extrajudicial Killings And Enforced Disappearances
I. Introduction to Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances
Definitions:
Extrajudicial Killings (EJKs): Killings carried out by law enforcement agencies or state actors without legal process or judicial sanction.
Enforced Disappearances: When individuals are secretly abducted or detained by state officials or agents, followed by a refusal to acknowledge their fate or whereabouts.
Legal Importance:
Both violate fundamental rights such as:
Right to life and liberty (Article 21, Indian Constitution)
Right to a fair trial (Article 14, Article 21)
Internationally, these acts violate treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
II. Legal Framework and Challenges
Domestic laws:
No specific statute criminalizes extrajudicial killings or enforced disappearances.
General provisions under IPC like Section 302 (murder), 201 (destruction of evidence).
Investigation and prosecution typically under CrPC and Supreme Court writ jurisdiction.
Judicial oversight fills the gaps:
Courts have stepped in to ensure accountability through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and suo motu actions.
Directions for independent investigations, compensation, and policy reforms.
III. Landmark Judicial Pronouncements and Case Laws
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 610
Facts:
Alleged custodial death and torture by police.
Held:
Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
Guidelines included: police must prepare arrest memo, inform family, produce the arrested person before magistrate within 24 hours, medical examination on arrest, police personnel identity cards, etc.
Importance:
First major judicial effort to impose accountability and transparency on custodial procedures.
Significant step to prevent extrajudicial killings in custody.
2. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 568
Facts:
A PIL concerning disappearances and custodial killings.
Held:
Supreme Court directed states to establish special police units to investigate custodial deaths and disappearances.
Court emphasized prompt registration of FIRs, independent investigation, and regular court monitoring.
Importance:
Institutionalized state accountability mechanisms.
Reinforced importance of investigative transparency.
3. Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India (2006)
Citation: (2006) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
PIL seeking reforms in policing and measures to prevent abuse including extrajudicial killings.
Held:
Supreme Court issued directions for police reforms:
Police accountability bodies.
Fixed tenure for police officers.
Measures to prevent custodial violence and unlawful killings.
Directed implementation of D.K. Basu guidelines across India.
Importance:
Holistic approach to reform law enforcement.
Focused on accountability to reduce EJKs and enforced disappearances.
4. Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011)
Citation: AIR 2011 SC 3002
Facts:
Allegations of disappearances and extrajudicial killings by police and paramilitary forces in conflict zones.
Held:
Supreme Court underscored the role of judicial oversight in protecting fundamental rights.
Directed that human rights violations in conflict areas be investigated by independent agencies.
Emphasized protection of vulnerable groups from state excesses.
Importance:
Affirmed judiciary’s role in conflict zones.
Expanded accountability mechanisms beyond urban policing.
5. Teesta Setalvad & Ors. v. Union of India (2016)
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 40 of 2016
Facts:
Related to enforced disappearances post-2002 Gujarat riots.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized right to know the fate and whereabouts of disappeared persons.
Ordered investigation and compensation for victims.
Directed creation of register of disappeared persons.
Affirmed that enforced disappearances violate Article 21 and international norms.
Importance:
Strong judicial stance on enforced disappearances.
Encouraged transparency and victim compensation.
IV. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|
| D.K. Basu v. West Bengal (1997) | Guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths |
| PUCL v. Union of India (1997) | State obligation for independent investigations |
| Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) | Police reforms to enhance accountability |
| Nandini Sundar v. Chhattisgarh (2011) | Judicial oversight in conflict zones |
| Teesta Setalvad v. Union of India (2016) | Right to know fate of disappeared persons |
V. Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has taken a proactive role in ensuring legal accountability for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances by:
Issuing binding procedural safeguards to prevent custodial abuses.
Mandating independent investigations and monitoring.
Directing police reforms to reduce misuse of power.
Recognizing victims’ rights to truth and compensation.
Extending protection even in conflict and sensitive areas.
However, challenges remain due to lack of specific laws and occasional enforcement gaps. Judicial oversight continues to be critical in pushing for transparency and justice in cases of state excesses.
RELATED Blog
comments