Article 21 of the Constitution provides no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1255 OF 1999
 Peoples Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. ... Appellants
 Versus
 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
 WITH
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1256 OF 1999
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1367 OF 1999
 WRIT PETITION (C) NO.316 OF 2008
 CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.47 OF 2011
 IN
 WRIT PETITION (C) NO.316 OF 2008
 TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.27 OF 2011
 O R D E R
 R.M. LODHA, CJI.

16. Article 21 of the Constitution provides no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law. This Court has stated time and again that Article 21
confers sacred and cherished right under the Constitution which cannot be
violated, except according to procedure established by law. Article 21
 16
guarantees personal liberty to every single person in the country which
includes the right to live with human dignity.
17. In line with the guarantee provided by Article 21 and other
provisions in the Constitution of India, a number of statutory provisions
also seek to protect personal liberty, dignity and basic human rights. In
spite of Constitutional and statutory provisions aimed at safeguarding the
personal liberty and life of a citizen, the cases of death in police
encounters continue to occur. This Court has been confronted with
encounter cases from time to time. In Chaitanya Kalbagh3, this Court was
concerned with a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution
wherein the impartial investigation was sought for the alleged killing of 299
persons in the police encounters. The Court observed that in the facts and
circumstances presented before it, there was an imperative need of
ensuring that the guardians of law and order do in fact observe the code of
discipline expected of them and that they function strictly as the protectors
of innocent citizens.
18. In R.S. Sodhi4, a writ petition was brought to this Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution relating to an incident in which 10 persons
were reported to have been killed in what were described as encounters
between the Punjab militants and the local police. The Court observed,
3
 Chaitanya Kalbagh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.; [(1989) 2 SCC 314]
4
 R.S. Sodhi, Advocate v. State of U.P. and Ors.; [ 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143]
 17
Whether the loss of lives was on account of a genuine or a fake encounter
is a matter which has to be inquired into and investigated closely. The
Court entrusted the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for
short, the CBI) to ensure that the investigation did not lack credibility.
19. In Satyavir Singh Rathi5, the matter before this Court arose
from the First Information Report (for short, FIR) registered against police
personnel involved in a shoot-out for an offence punishable under Sections
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). In the complaint, it was
alleged that the police officials had surrounded the car and had fired
indiscriminately and without cause at the occupants, killing the two and
causing grievous injuries to the third. This Court concurred with the High
Court and the trial Court on the conviction under Section 302 IPC and
rejected the defence set up by the accused persons relying on Exception 3
in Section 300 IPC as it was found to be not in good faith or due discharge
of their duty.
20. In Prakash Kadam6, the allegation was that the accused
persons decided to eliminate the deceased in a false police encounter. The
Court noted that this was a very serious case wherein prima facie some
police officers and staff were engaged by some private persons to kill their
5
 Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. State through Central Bur
eau of
Investigation; [(2011) 6 SCC 1]
6
 Prakash Kadam and Ors. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.; [(2011) 6 SCC 189]
 18
opponent and the police officers and the staff acted as contract killers for
them. The Court warned policemen that they would not be excused for
committing murder in the name of encounter on the pretext that they
were carrying out the orders of their superior officers or politicians. The
Court said that the encounter philosophy is a criminal philosophy.
21. In Om Prakash2, the allegation against the accused persons
was that the complainants son was killed by them in a fake police
encounter. The Court, however, held that the encounter was a genuine one
though NHRC guideline for photography of the autopsy was not complied
with.
22. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in B.G. Verghese7 dealt with
two writ petitions. In Writ Petition (Criminal) No.31/2007, it was stated that
during the years 2003-2006, 21 police encounter killings took place in the
State of Gujarat. It was alleged that the so-called police encounters were
fake and the persons were killed by the police officials in cold blood. In the
writ petition a prayer was made for ordering an inquiry into all the cases of
police encounters, which, according to the petitioner, were fake in order to
establish the rule of law and to bring out the truth in each case. In the
other Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 83/2007, the allegation related to the
killing of one person in a police encounter. It was alleged that this too was
7
 B.G. Verghese v. Union of India and Ors.; [(2013) 11 SCC 525]
 19
an instance of fake encounter in which the victim was killed by the officers
of the crime branch of police in cold blood and in a premeditated manner.
The prayer was made in the writ petition to order an independent
investigation by a special investigation team into all the fake encounters.
During the pendency of the matter before this Court, the State of Gujarat
had constituted a Monitoring Authority and Special Task Force for
investigation of police encounters. Since the former Judge of this Court
was appointed as Chairman of the Monitoring Authority, the Court
requested the Chairman of the Monitoring Authority to look into all the
cases of alleged fake encounters as enumerated in the two writ petitions
and to have them thoroughly investigated so that full and complete truth
comes to light in each case.
23. In Rohtash Kumar8, again a two-Judge Bench of this Court
was confronted with killing of a person in an encounter by the police
officials. Having found that the death took place in the fake police
encounter, the Court directed an independent investigating agency to
conduct the investigation so that guilty could be brought to justice.
24. The above cases have been referred only by way of
illustration to show that killings in police encounters require independent
8
 Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana through the Home Secretary, Government of Haryana, Civil
Secretariat, Chandigarh and Ors.; [(2013) 14 SCC 290]
 20
investigation. The killings in police encounters affect the credibility of the
rule of law and the administration of the criminal justice system.
25. We are not oblivious of the fact that police in India has to
perform a difficult and delicate task, particularly, when many hardcore
criminals, like, extremists, terrorists, drug peddlers, smugglers who have
organized gangs, have taken strong roots in the society but then such
criminals must be dealt with by the police in an efficient and effective
manner so as to bring them to justice by following rule of law. We are of the
view that it would be useful and effective to structure appropriate
guidelines to restore faith of the people in police force. In a society
governed by rule of law, it is imperative that extra-judicial killings are
properly and independently investigated so that justice may be done.