1. The Commissions report dated 30-3-2013 was received in Court on 2-4-2013.

2. We wish to put on record our gratitude for the painstaking work done by the Commission within the time as requested by the Court.

3. The Amicus Curiae has also submitted a report in regard to the proceedings before the Commission. Let the Amicus Curiaes report be also taken on record.

4. The Commission has found that in all the six cases examined by it, as requested by the Court, the killings of the victims were not in any true encounter with the police or the security forces.

5. The findings of the Commission are as under:

5.1. Case 1 - Md. Azad Khan—The incident in which the deceased Md. Azad Khan was killed was not an encounter nor was he killed in exercise of the right of self-defence. The Commission further found that there was no evidence to conclude that the deceased was an activist of any unlawful organisation or was involved in any criminal activities.

5.2. Case 2 - Khumbongmayum Orsonjit—The incident in which the deceased Khumbongmayum Orsonjit died is not an encounter nor can the security forces plead that it was in the exercise of their right of private defence. The Commission further found that Khumbongmayum Orsonjit did not have any adverse criminal antecedents.

5.3. Case 3 - Nameirakpam Gobind Meitei and Nameirakpam Nobo Meitei—The incident in question is not an encounter but an operation by the security forces wherein death of the victims was caused knowingly. The Commission further found that the two deceased did not have any criminal antecedents.

5.4. Case 4 - Elangbam Kiranjit Singh—Even if the case put forward by the complainant cannot be accepted, the case put forth by the security forces cannot also be accepted because they exceeded their right of private defence. Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that the incident, in question, cannot be justified on the ground of self-defence. The Commission further found that there were no adverse antecedents against the deceased.

5.5. Case 5 - Chongtham Umakanta—This incident in which Umakanta died has compelled us to come to the conclusion that though the manner in which he was picked up, as stated by the complainant, cannot be accepted; the manner in which he died definitely indicates that this could not have been an encounter. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the case put forth on behalf of the security forces that the incident was an encounter and that Umakanta was killed in an encounter or in self-defence cannot be accepted. The Commission further found that although there were allegations against the deceased, the veracity of those allegations was not established.

5.6. Case 6 - Akoijam Priyobrata alias Bochou Singh—That the deceased did not die in an encounter. The Commission further found that there is no acceptable material to come to the conclusion that the deceased had any adverse antecedents.

6. Needless to say that the Commissions findings are based on a careful consideration of the detailed evidences adduced by the complainants and the Security Forces.

7. The Commission has also given its report on the role and functioning of the State Police and Security Forces in Manipur.

8. The Commission has pointed out that this Court in Naga Peoples Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC : 1998 SCC (Cri) 514, set out detailed guidelines within which the Security Forces should operate under the Armed Forces (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (in short "AfSPA").

9. Following the decision of this Court, the Armed Forces Headquarters issued circulars laying down the Dos and Donts for the Security Forces.

10. The National Human Rights Commission has also issued detailed guidelines and the State Government has also issued circulars prescribing operational limits for the State Police and the Security Forces. But, unfortunately, none of these guidelines or Dos and Donts are followed in actual operations.

11. One of the main issues before this Court, therefore, is how to ensure that the State Police and the Security Forces adhere to the guidelines laid down by this Court and the directions issued by the Army Headquarters, the National Human Rights Commission and the State Government.

12. We expect Ms Menaka Guruswamy, the Amicus Curiae and Mr Paras Kuhad, the Additional Solicitor General, apart from Mr. Khwarirakpam Nobin Singh, the counsel appearing for the State of Manipur and Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners to specially focus on this issue while addressing this Court on the next date.

13. Let a copy of the report be given each to Mr Paras Kuhad, the Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India, Ms Menaka Guruswamy, the Amicus Curiae, Ms Shobha, learned counsel representing the National Human Rights Commission for their respective responses.

14. Put up for further directions on 9-4-2013.