Chhattisgarh High Court Declines SIT Probe into Naxal Death, Upholds Federal Policing Structure
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled against an SIT investigation into the death of a Naxal member, emphasising the importance of maintaining the federal structure of policing and regular counter-insurgency operations.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that anti-Naxal operations, which are part of routine counter-insurgency efforts by State or Central security forces, should not be investigated by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court dismissed a petition seeking an SIT probe into the death of K Ramachandra Reddy, a member of the outlawed Communist Party of India Maoist Central Committee, during an anti-Naxal operation in Narayanpur district last month.
Reddy’s son, Raja Chandra, from Theegalakuntapally in Telangana’s Siddipet district, filed the petition. He alleged that his father was killed in a fake encounter by security forces. The division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Judge Bibhu Datta Guru stated that directing an SIT investigation into such operations would undermine the federal structure of policing powers and set an inconsistent precedent with established legal principles.
Security Forces’ Account and Petitioner’s Allegations
According to police reports, Katta Ramachandra Reddy, also known as Raju Dada, and Kadari Satyanarayana Reddy, alias Kosa Dada, were killed in a gunfight with the District Reserve Guard on September 22. This encounter occurred near Farasbeda and Toymeta villages in the Abujhmad area. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner, argued that the encounter story was fabricated and that Reddy was executed cold-bloodedly by the police.
Gonsalves highlighted that both security forces and Naxals were present in large numbers during the encounter. He questioned why only two Maoist Central Committee members died while no other Maoists or security personnel were injured. He suggested that after being captured, the deceased might have been taken to the jungle and killed by security forces.
Press Releases and Encounter Timing
The petitioner raised concerns about press releases issued before the encounter. On September 17, Politburo member Mallojula Venugopal Rao stated that Maoists wanted to abandon armed struggle and join mainstream society. However, on September 20, another release by Vikalp, a spokesperson for the Maoist party, contradicted this statement. Police claimed that K Ramchandra Reddy issued this second release denying any intention to give up armed struggle.
State Advocate General Prafulla N Bharat opposed the petition, describing the encounter as genuine. He stated that following specific intelligence inputs, a police team conducted a search operation in Abujhmad area where they encountered 20-25 Naxalites. Afterward, they recovered bodies of two Maoists along with weapons like an AK-47 rifle and an INSAS rifle.
Legal Considerations and Court’s Decision
The court noted that K Ramachandra Reddy had numerous criminal cases against him: 29 in Chhattisgarh, two in Telangana, and six in Maharashtra. The court found no evidence to support claims of his arrest or torture before death. It emphasized that routine anti-Naxal operations fall under state police jurisdiction unless credible allegations of excesses or human rights violations arise.
The court concluded that no exceptional circumstances warranted an SIT investigation in this case. It reiterated that only when impartial probes are necessary to uphold justice can such matters be entrusted to an SIT. Therefore, it denied relief to the petitioner.
