Stating that administrative liquidation was certainly no course open to police to deal with terrorists, the Supreme Court today directed the Manipur government to pay Rs one lakh each as compensation to the families of two activists of the Hamar Peoples Convention Party, who were abducted and shot dead in April 1991.
The present case appears to be one where two persons along with some others were just seized from a hut, taken a long distance away in a truck and shot there. This type of activity cannot be countenanced by the courts even in the case of disturbed areas, a division bench comprising Justice B P Jeevan Reddy and Justice S C Sen said in a judgement on a petition by the Peoples Union of Civil Liberties.
The judges noted that if the police had information that terrorists were gathering at a particular place and if they had surprised and arrested them, the proper course would have been to deal with them according to law. Administrative liquidation was certainly not not a course open to them. The court awarded the compensation after the district and sessions judge Manipur (west) held an inquiry and concluded that contrary to the state government view, there had been no encounter and that the two deceased Lalbeiklien and Saikaplein were shot dead by the police while in custody on the night of April 4, 1991.
The judges directed the collector/district magistrate of Churachanpur to hand over the cheques for the compensation amounts to the families of the deceased within two months from yesterday.
The judges said it was not for the courts to say how terrorists should be fought.
We cannot be blind to the fact that even after fifty years of Independence, our territorial integrity is not fully secure. They have to be subdued, the judges said.Further the court observed that whether terrorists should be fought politically or be dealt with by force was a matter of policy for the government to determine.
The courts may not be the appropriate forum to determine these questions and all this was beyond dispute.
But the present case was one of violation of fundmental rights.
The court also awarded costs of Rs 10,000 to the PUCL for pursuing the case all these years.
