The Supreme Court on Friday reopened 79 cases of extra-judicial killings in Manipur by directing a fresh Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against officers of the Army, paramilitary forces and Manipur Police accused of these crimes.
This is perhaps the first case where the SC has ordered a probe into action by the Army in a State where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is in place.
The cases relate to a period spread across three decades where compensation had either been paid to the victims’ kin or petitions in this regard were pending before the concerned High Court.
Picking out 79 cases where compensation had been paid on orders passed by a Commission of Inquiry, judicial enquiry, High Court, or the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the court held that such cases will serve as prima facie cases for the CBI to register FIRs.
The Bench ordered the CBI Director to form a five-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) and inform the court about its composition in three weeks. The Bench of Justices Madan lokur and UU lalit directed the SIT to investigate and file charge sheets by December 31 this year. The agency has to submit an action taken report to the court by mid-January, 2018.
The case came up before the court in a PIl filed by families of 1,528 people lost on account of extra-judicial killings by officers of the Army, paramilitary forces such as Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Assam Rifles, etc, and Manipur Police personnel.
The court restricted its attention to 35 cases dealt with by a Commission of Inquiry, 37 cases probed under judicial enquiry and High Court, and 23 cases examined by the NHRC.
Although the Centre posed stiff resistance against reopening of cases citing lapse of time and payment of compensation, the Bench was of the firm view, “If a crime has been committed, a crime which involves the death of a person who is possibly innocent, it cannot be overlooked only because of a lapse of time.” It was critical of the State’s failure to probe each incident when it occurred.
On the other argument of compensation being already paid, the court held, “Compensation cannot override the law of the land otherwise all heinous crimes would get settled through payment of monetary compensation.”
The judgment noted with anguish how the Centre reduced the NHRC to a “toothless tiger” by denying them manpower, infrastructure, finances, due to the increased workload even as it hoped that all demands made by the “high-powered body” that protects human rights is given a respectable treatment.