The High Court's Stance: Why No Special Probe for Naxal Encounter Death?

In a significant ruling that reaffirms the boundaries of judicial intervention in state policing matters, the Chhattisgarh High Court has emphatically rejected a plea for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the alleged encounter killing of a Naxalite. The court's decision, delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, underscores a profound respect for the federal structure of policing and the inherent competence of state law enforcement agencies.

The petition, filed by the wife of the deceased Naxal, had sought a thorough and impartial investigation into her husband's death, questioning the circumstances surrounding what the authorities claimed was a legitimate encounter.

Such pleas often arise from public and familial skepticism regarding police narratives in sensitive cases, particularly those involving alleged extrajudicial killings.

However, the High Court adopted a firm stance, emphasizing that the power to order an SIT probe is an extraordinary one, to be exercised sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances.

The bench meticulously cited various Supreme Court pronouncements, which have consistently held that state police forces are primarily responsible and inherently competent to investigate crimes within their jurisdiction. Interfering with this fundamental operational framework, the court reasoned, would effectively undermine the federal structure that governs law enforcement in India.

The court's judgment delves into the constitutional framework, referencing Article 246 of the Constitution, which delineates the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States.

Specifically, it highlighted Entry 2 of the State List, which unequivocally places 'Police' and 'Public Order' within the exclusive legislative domain of state governments. This constitutional allocation of power reinforces the notion that states possess significant autonomy in managing their policing affairs, free from unwarranted external intervention, including from the judiciary, unless absolutely necessary.

The bench further clarified that merely alleging an unfair investigation or harboring suspicion, without concrete evidence of dereliction of duty or clear bias, is insufficient grounds to divest the state police of their statutory responsibility.

The court reiterated that while judicial oversight is crucial for upholding justice, it must not cross the line into micromanaging the operational aspects of policing, which falls squarely within the executive's purview.

This ruling by the Chhattisgarh High Court sends a clear message about the judiciary's approach to such petitions.

It reaffirms the principle of state autonomy in policing and underscores the high bar for ordering special investigative teams, reserving such extraordinary measures for situations where the state machinery demonstrably fails or is compromised beyond reasonable doubt. It's a judgment that reinforces federal principles while navigating the complex terrain of public accountability and law enforcement integrity.