Parties and roles: Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India & Ors. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. Families in Manipur alleged that security forces and police had killed civilians and labelled them militants or encounter casualties during prolonged internal disturbance. Authorities invoked operational necessity and statutory protection under AFSPA. The central constitutional problem was whether counter-insurgency conditions permit lethal force without independent investigation, and whether passage of time or official inquiries could close accountability. Procedural and real-world context: 2012: Families alleged 1,528 extra-judicial killings in Manipur. | 2016: Court rejected blanket immunity and ordered scrutiny of sample cases. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve does AFSPA provide immunity for excessive or retaliatory force? Must every alleged encounter death be investigated? Could the CBI examine old cases despite military proceedings or prior inquiries? The outcome mattered immediately because there is no absolute immunity from investigation. Even in disturbed areas, excessive force or killing a person who posed no imminent threat violates Article 21. Procedural setting: 2012: Families alleged 1,528 extra-judicial killings in Manipur. | 2016: Court rejected blanket immunity and ordered scrutiny of sample cases. | 14 Jul 2017: CBI/SIT investigation directed into identified deaths. The central problem before the Court was does AFSPA provide immunity for excessive or retaliatory force? Must every alleged encounter death be investigated? Could the CBI examine old cases despite military proceedings or prior inquiries? The controversy was considered in the framework of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958; Code of Criminal Procedure; Indian Penal Code, together with Constitution arts.14, 21, 32 and 355. The wider importance of the case lies in right to life; proportional use of force; no blanket immunity; independent investigation; command and State accountability.

Petitioners: each suspicious death required independent criminal investigation; AFSPA does not authorize execution or remove Article 21. | Union/security forces: operations occurred in hostile conditions; personnel acted in good faith, prior inquiries existed, and delayed investigation would be difficult and demoralizing. Competing positions in context: Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM)'s position: as the petitioner, Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Right to life; proportional use of force; no blanket immunity; independent investigation; command and State accountability. Union of India & Ors.'s position: as respondent, Union of India & Ors. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958; Code of Criminal Procedure; Indian Penal Code and Constitution arts.14, 21, 32 and 355, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

There is no absolute immunity from investigation. Even in disturbed areas, excessive force or killing a person who posed no imminent threat violates Article 21. The Court directed a CBI Special Investigation Team to register FIRs and investigate specified cases, required status reports and continued monitoring. Counter-insurgency cannot replace rule-of-law accountability. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Right to life; proportional use of force; no blanket immunity; independent investigation; command and State accountability and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(Crl.) No. 129/2012. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958; Code of Criminal Procedure; Indian Penal Code. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958; Code of Criminal Procedure; Indian Penal Code

Constitution arts.14, 21, 32 and 355

Right to life; proportional use of force; no blanket immunity; independent investigation; command and State accountability