HC refuses SIT probe into anti-Naxal operation killing CPI (Maoist) leader

The Chhattisgarh High Court has said anti-Naxal operations, being part of regular counter-insurgency measures undertaken by state or Central security forces, cannot be subjected to investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) unless exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention.

The HC made the observation while dismissing a petition seeking an SIT probe into the killing of outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist) Central Committee (CC) member K Ramachandra Reddy in an anti-Naxal operation in Narayanpur district last month.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Judge Bibhu Datta Guru said on October 14 that ordering an SIT probe into such regular field operations would not only undermine the federal structure of policing powers but also set a precedent inconsistent with established legal and administrative principles.

Reddy's son Raja Chandra (33), a resident of Theegalakuntapally in Telangana's Siddipet district, had filed the petition seeking the constitution of an SIT comprising "honest" and "upright" police officers from outside Chhattisgarh.

He had alleged that his father was killed by the security forces in a fake encounter.

According to police, Katta Ramachandra Reddy alias Raju Dada (63) and Kadari Satyanarayana Reddy alias Kosa Dada (67), both Central Committee members of the banned outfit, were killed in a gunfight with the District Reserve Guard, a unit of the state police, on September 22 near the forested hills of Farasbeda and Toymeta villages in Abujhmad area.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves submitted that his client reasonably apprehends that his father was executed by the police in cold blood and a false story of an encounter was concocted.

Both the security forces and Naxals were hundreds in number, and after the encounter, only two persons died, and those were CC members of the Maoists, he said.

It is highly suspicious that no other Maoists or security forces died or were injured in the "so-called encounter" when, normally, a Maoist leader of high rank is protected and surrounded by many other Maoists, he further argued.

After the deceased were caught/taken in custody, they might have been taken to the jungle where they were killed by the security forces and the police, he submitted.

Gonsalves, referring to press releases, also raised questions over the timing of the encounter.

On September 17, a press release was issued by Politburo member (Mallojula Venugopal Rao alias Bhupathi) Sonu, saying that due to changing circumstances, the Maoists wanted to give up armed struggle and join the mainstream.

Thereafter, on September 20, another press release was given by a person named Vikalp, who is stated to be a spokesperson of the Maoist party.

According to the police, deceased K Ramchandra Reddy was the spokesperson of the Maoist party and the second press release was issued by him, stating that the previous press release was not issued by the Maoists and they did not intend to give up armed struggle.

Just two days after the press release, Reddy was allegedly killed, he submitted.

The petitioner also raised questions about the nature of injuries on his father's body.

Opposing the petition, state Advocate General Prafulla N Bharat described the encounter as genuine and submitted that following specific intelligence input, a police party was sent on a search operation in Abhujmad area during which an encounter took place between security forces and 20-25 Naxalites.

Following the encounter, the bodies of two Maoists were recovered, along with an AK-47 rifle, an INSAS rifle, a BGL launcher, and other weapons, he said.

In Chhattisgarh, Reddy faced 29 cases, in Telangana two and in Maharashtra six, the AG submitted, arguing that the petition was bereft of merit and deserved to be dismissed.

This petition is based purely on the apprehension of the petitioner and his mother that the deceased did not die in an anti-Naxal operation but was firstly arrested/taken into custody, tortured and then killed by the security personnel. However, there is no material on record to substantiate the said allegation, the HC order said.

It is also not disputed that the deceased was a habitual offender and a number of criminal cases were registered against him, and he had left his house way back in 2007, the HC said.

Anti-Naxal operations, being part of regular counter-insurgency measures undertaken by the State or Central Security forces, cannot be subjected to investigation by the SIT, as prayed by the petitioner, unless exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention, it said.

Routine operations conducted by security personnel in Naxal-affected areas aimed at maintaining law and order and combating insurgency fall within the domain of the State Police forces and Central Paramilitary Agencies operating under lawful authority, the HC order added.

Directing investigation by SIT into such regular field operations would not only undermine the federal structure of policing powers but also set a precedent inconsistent with established legal and administrative principles, the HC said.

Only in instances where credible allegations of excesses, misuse of power, or violations of human rights arise, and where an impartial probe is deemed necessary to uphold justice, can the judiciary consider entrusting such matters to the SIT but no such circumstances exists in the present case, it added.