The Supreme Court today said a "distinction" must be drawn between the right of self defence and retaliation and directed a thorough probe into the alleged fake encounter killings in insurgency-hit Manipur.
A bench of justices M B Lokur and U U Lalit said it was "abundantly clear" the right of self defence or private defence falls in one basket and the use of excessive force or retaliatory force falls in the another basket.
"A distinction must be drawn between the right of self defence or private defence and use of excessive force or retaliation. Very simply put, the right of self defence or private defence is a right that can be exercised to defend oneself but not to retaliate," the bench said.
The apex court, which was dealing with a PIL on alleged 1528 extra-judicial killings in Manipur from 2000 to 2012 by Armed Forces, referred to an earlier verdict which cautioned against use of retaliatory force even against a dreaded criminal.
The court drew a fine line to distinguish between self defence and excessive retaliatory measures.
"There is a qualitative difference between use of force in an operation and use of such deadly force that is akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly; one is an act of self defence while the other is an act of retaliation," the bench noted.
"Therefore, while a victim of aggression has a right of private defence or self-defence (recognised by Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC) if that victim exceeds the right of private defence or self defence by using excessive force or retaliatory measures, he then becomes an aggressor and commits a punishable offence," it said.
The top court said to provide assurance to the people, the allegations of extra judicial killings must be thoroughly enquired into as "this is the requirement of a democracy and the requirement of preservation of the rule of law and the preservation of individual liberties."
It said that "unfortunately occasionally" use of excessive force or retaliation leads to death of the original aggressor.
"Society and the courts obviously cannot and do not accept such a death caused by the State since it is destructive of the rule of law and plainly unconstitutional," it said.
