Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.62 seconds)
Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties ... vs State Of A.P. Represented By Secretary, ... on 13 July, 2007 cites

K.G. Kannabiran vs Chief Secretary, Govt. Of A.P. And Ors. on 14 August, 1995

59. Coming to the judgment of this Court in K.G. Kannabiran v. Chief Secretary (2 Supra), several observations made and findings were recorded, in relation to the death of one Madhusudanraj Yadav in an encounter. Extensive discussion was undertaken, as to the facts and circumstances of the case, that led to the encounter; and about the powers and functions of police officials. At one place, it was observed by the Division Bench, that there was no justification for the police, to lay watch, to apprehend the said individual. It reads as under:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 9 - C V Sastri - Full Document

People'S Union For Civil Liberties & Anr vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2003

34. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, senior counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India . This judgment also goes against what has been argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents. In this judgment the Supreme Court accepted the power of the Government and the police to make policies and laws to fight terrorism, but it did not condone the death of persons by police men who were innocent and who were killed in encounter. The question before this Court is not whether the police officer should decide to use force and liquidate a person in his self-defence, but the question is when a person is liquidated by police in an encounter, ambush or shoot-out, whether such death was caused in self-defence or not. Reliance is placed on para-6 of the judgment which is reproduced below, In view of the fact that we have accepted the finding recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, it is not possible to accede to the contention of Ms. Janani insofar as the manner in which the incident had taken place. It is true that Manipur is a disturbed area, that there appears to be a good amount of terrorist activity affecting public order and, may be, even security of that State. It may also be that under these conditions, - , certain additional and unusual powers have to be given to the police to deal with terrorism. It may be necessary to fight terrorism with a strong hand which may involve vesting of good amount of discretion in the police officers or other paramilitary forces engaged in fighting them. If the version of the police with respect to the incident in question were true there could have been no question of any interference by Court. Nobody can say that the police should wait till they are shot at. It is for the force on the spot to decide when to act, how to act and where to act. It is not for the Court to say how the terrorists should be fought. We cannot be blind to the fact that even after fifty years of our independence, our territorial integrity is not fully secure. There are several types of separatist and terrorist activities in several parts of the country. They have to be subdued. Whether they should be fought politically or be death with by force is a matter of policy for the government to determine. The Courts may not be the appropriate forum to determine those questions. All this is beyond dispute. But the present case appears to be one where two persons along with some others were just seized from a hut, taken to a long distance away in a truck and shot there. This type of activity cannot certainly be countenanced by the Courts even in the case of disturbed areas. If the police had information that terrorists were gathering at a particular place and if they had surprised them and arrested them, the proper course for them was to deal with them according to law. "administrative liquidation" was certainly not a course open to them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 601 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next