NGOs Send Their Own People For Fact Finding; Find Fault With Security Forces For Killing Maoists : Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

The top law officer relied on a counter-affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in March 2014.  "Fortunately, this is the consistent stand of the central government. The fight against Naxalism is consistent," the Solicitor-General maintained. The affidavit in question detailed the "violent ideology" professed by the Communist Party of India (Maoist), which is a banned radical leftist political outfit and militant organisation that endeavours to overthrow the "semi-colonial and semi-feudal Indian state" by a protracted "people's war" against the democratically elected government. To that end, the CPI (Maoist) employs "a combination of armed insurrection, mass mobilisation of certain sections of society, and tactical partnership with other insurgent groups operating in other parts of the country", the Solicitor-General quoted from the affidavit.

To drive the point home, Mehta took the court through the three-pronged strategy of the Maoists outlined in a manual entitled "Strategy and Tactics of the Indian Revolution", especially highlighting their scheme of mobilising certain targeted sections of the population, especially the Urban population, through its "mass organisations" or "front organisations". "The mass organisations mostly operate under the garb of human rights non-governmental organisations and are organically linked to the CPI (Maoist) party structure but maintain separate identities in an attempt to avoid legal liabilities. These mass organisers are manned by ideologues which include academicians and activists, fully committed to the party line," Mehta read out.

The government counter-affidavit, referring to "The Manifesto of Naxalism", further stated, "Many such mass organisations are active in different parts of India, working for the CPI (Maoist) party in different ways. Such organisations also function under the garb of NGOs, especially pursuing human rights issues, and are adept at using the legal process of the Indian state to undermine and emasculate enforcement action by the security forces, and thereby, further the cause of revolution."

"In almost every instance of the exchange of fire between the Maoist and the security forces resulting in the death of Maoist cadre in any state, such human rights organisations send fact-finding teams and invariably come to the conclusion that the security forces are at fault," Mehta read out an excerpt from the affidavit. He added, "This is what happened in this case."

Earlier this year, in July, a Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala refused to direct an independent investigation into the alleged extra-judicial killings of Chhattisgarh tribals by the Indian security forces. Not only did not Centre deny the claims of the petitioners, but it also filed an application seeking perjury proceedings against the petitioners for creating a false narrative. The apex court, while imposing an exemplary cost of Rs. 5 lakh on the first petitioner, also left it open to the state government and the CBI to pursue other remedies against the petitioners for making false charges and criminal conspiracy.

Mehta assailed the present petition by placing heavy reliance on the earlier judgement of the top court. He recalled, "A similar petitioner came to this court with 10 affected people, presenting a very brutal picture of the security forces. The court took it very seriously and rightly because gruesome incidents were narrated." When the affected parties were unable to communicate with the Bench because of the language barrier, the District Judge, Patiala House was directed to record their statement. None of the allegedly affected persons agreed with the "public-spirited individual" at whose behest, the court had taken cognisance of the issue, the Solicitor-General said. He added, "The court directed an investigation into who was behind the petition, who financed it, what was the ultimate intention, and what was the original source of inspiration in filing such a frivolous petition."

The SG  then stated, "I intend to place such an application before this court. Direct prosecution of this petitioner because we will have to be tough with Naxalism." However, Justice Shah pointed out, "We may not entertain the writ petition. We may dismiss it at the most. But, to direct prosecution at this stage, pending investigation, that will be very dangerous."

Asking the Centre to submit a final status report, the Bench pronounced, "Learned Solicitor-General, under the instructions of the concerned investigating officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation, has stated at the bar that at present, the investigation is at the final stage. He has stated that the investigation shall be completed and a final report before this court shall be submitted in a sealed cover on or before November 30."

In 2013, eight tribals, including four minors, and a Central Reserve Police Force personnel were killed in an encounter at Edesmetta in Chattisgarh's Bijapur district. Four others were injured. The then Bharatiya Janata Party-led state government claimed that the security forces killed the villagers in self-defence against Maoists who opened fire at them.  In response to the resultant outrage, a judicial commission enquiry was directed, the report of which was submitted to the Chhattisgarh government in September 2021. In March of this year, the report by the one-member commission was tabled by Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel in the state assembly. The report has ruled out imminent danger to the lives of the security personnel. The shootings were not in self-defence, but due to misidentification and out of panic, when the security forces saw a group of people gathered near a bonfire to celebrate their local festival Beej Pandum, the report has concluded.

Case Title: Degree Prasad Chouhan v. State of Chattisgarh & Anr. [WP (Crl.) No. 162/2013]