Anti-Naxal Operations Regular Counter-Insurgency Measure: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking SIT Probe Into Killing Of Top Maoist Commander In Encounter

The High Court was hearing a plea filed by the son of the deceased, alleging that his father had been executed in cold blood by the police and seeking a judicially monitored SIT probe into the incident.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while dismissing the petition, observed that “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 Bench further held that “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 exist in the present case.”

Senior Advocate Collin Gonzalves represented the appellant, while Advocate General Prafull N Bharat appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The petitioner, son of the deceased, contended that the police had staged a fake encounter resulting in the death of his father, a senior member of the banned CPI (Maoist). It was argued that the alleged encounter was an act of extra-judicial killing and violated the deceased’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner sought the constitution of an SIT or a CBI investigation into the case and the grant of compensation to the family.

The State opposed the plea, stating that the deceased was a top Maoist commander and a key figure in several serious cases registered across Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, and Telangana. It was further submitted that the encounter took place during a lawful anti-Naxal operation based on credible intelligence inputs, and that all procedural safeguards prescribed by the Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had been duly followed, including FIR registration, magisterial inquiry, postmortem videography, and communication with the NHRC.

Court’s Observation

The Chhattisgarh High Court examined the records and found no material to substantiate the petitioner’s allegations of a fake encounter. The Court observed that the deceased had been absconding for years and was a wanted Maoist leader involved in multiple violent incidents, while holding that “the allegations levelled by the petitioner rest solely on conjecture and lack any credible evidentiary foundation.”

Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014), the Bench found that the State had adhered to all mandatory guidelines for investigating encounter deaths. It observed that “the mere existence of injuries or absence of police casualties cannot by itself lead to the inference that the encounter was staged.”

Addressing the request for SIT intervention, the Court held that “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.”

Relying on State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) and Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India (2020), the Court reiterated that such powers should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where the credibility of the investigation or protection of fundamental rights is at stake. Finding no such circumstances in the present case, it refused to order an SIT probe.

Notably, the Supreme Court had previously ordered to preserve the body of the deceased Maoist commander till the state high court decided his son’s plea questioning the genuineness of the encounter.

Conclusion

The Bench concluded that the procedures mandated by the Supreme Court and NHRC had been strictly followed and that there was no basis to suspect foul play.

Holding that the encounter in which the Maoist commander was killed was a lawful counter-insurgency operation, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Raja Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:51257-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, assisted by Kishore Narayan and Manik Gupta

Respondents: Advocate General Prafull N. Bharat, assisted by Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General

Click here to read/download Judgment