- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Petition To Identify More Than 8000 Missing Persons In Punjab From 1984 Onwards
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has refused to hear a petition seeking identification of more than 8,000 missing people during the period of militancy and counter-insurgency in Punjab starting from 1984.The Supreme Court asked the petitioner organization to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court.The PIL pertains to the “enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, and...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has refused to hear a petition seeking identification of more than 8,000 missing people during the period of militancy and counter-insurgency in Punjab starting from 1984.
The Supreme Court asked the petitioner organization to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The PIL pertains to the “enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, and mass cremations” of more than 8,000 people who were allegedly either killed using extra-judicial means or abducted by security forces in Punjab during counter-insurgency operations after 1984.
The petition stated that a probe conducted for over a period of ten years has uncovered mass cremation of bodies of more than 8,000 victims between 1984 and 1995.
According to the petition, these figures have been arrived at after collection of information from RTI replies, records presented before courts, an investigation conducted by human rights organization called Punjab Documentation & Advocacy Project (PDAP), as well as First Information Reports filed.
This data was collected from nearly 26 districts and sub-districts and 1600 villages in Punjab which were affected by militancy and counter-insurgency operations. Nearly 1200 FIRs and 150 RTI replies have been relied upon to detail instances of alleged mass cremations.
The petition alleged that these cases were closed without any wider inquiry and that bodies were sometimes cremated together in a single pyre and victims were labeled as “unidentified”.
The petition has invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India and raised the obligation on the state to investigate state crimes while ensuring rehabilitation of victims and prosecution of perpetrators.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Counsel Colin Gonsalves and Advocate Satnam Singh Bains.