Recently, the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain several petitions seeking an independent investigation into alleged remarks made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma concerning an encounter killing. A bench comprising Justices S.K. Kaul and Abhay S. Oka directed the petitioners to first approach the Gauhati High Court, simultaneously flagging what it termed a "disturbing trend" of litigants directly bypassing High Courts to petition the apex court.

The pleas, filed by Advocate Reep Hazarika and others, sought an impartial probe into statements reportedly made by Chief Minister Sarma in August 2022. These remarks followed an incident in Assam's Darrang district where a suspect, involved in the death of a police officer, was killed in an alleged encounter. Petitioners contended that the Chief Minister’s statements amounted to a justification of extrajudicial killings and warranted a thorough, unbiased investigation.

During the hearing, Justice Kaul questioned the petitioners' rationale for not approaching the Gauhati High Court. "Why haven't you gone to the Gauhati High Court? This is a disturbing trend of directly approaching this court," Justice Kaul observed, emphasizing the robust capacity and jurisdiction of High Courts in handling such matters. The bench underscored that Article 226 of the Constitution grants High Courts broad powers, including the issuance of writs, to address grievances and ensure justice at the state level.

Petitioners argued that they approached the Supreme Court directly due to "apprehension of prejudice" and the "importance of the matter." However, the Supreme Court bench reiterated the established judicial hierarchy, asserting that High Courts are the primary forums for such petitions and possess the necessary powers to adjudicate them fairly. Justice Oka further noted that similar pleas were already pending before the Gauhati High Court, advising the petitioners to seek an urgent hearing there if their concerns had not yet been addressed.

Chief Minister Sarma's alleged remarks, which became the subject of the petitions, reportedly alluded to a policy where if someone attempts to flee after snatching a weapon, "the bullet will go through the leg, not the chest." He was also quoted as stating that "such killings would set an example," remarks that drew criticism from various quarters regarding their potential implications for due process and human rights. A complaint regarding these statements had previously been filed at the Nagaon Sadar police station.

Supporting Details:

  • Case Context: Pleas sought independent probe into alleged remarks by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma.
  • Alleged Remarks Date: August 2022, following an encounter killing in Darrang district.
  • Supreme Court Bench: Justices S.K. Kaul and Abhay S. Oka.
  • Court's Primary Directive: Petitioners instructed to approach the Gauhati High Court first.
  • "Disturbing Trend" Observation: Direct petitions to SC bypassing High Courts.
  • Petitioners' Reason for SC Approach: "Apprehension of prejudice" and "importance of the matter."
  • Constitutional Provision: Article 226 grants High Courts powers to issue writs.

The Supreme Court's decision firmly reinforces the principle of judicial hierarchy and the critical role of High Courts as primary constitutional courts. This ruling implies that the petitioners must now redirect their legal efforts to the Gauhati High Court, which is expected to consider the matter within its jurisdiction. The apex court's pronouncement serves as a reminder to litigants to adhere to established legal protocols, ensuring that constitutional courts at various levels function effectively as intended.