![Assam government fails to submit affidavit with Supreme Court in the alleged fake encounters case and sought more time](http://media.assettype.com/pratidintime%2Fimport%2F2018%2F08%2FSupreme-court-assam-fake-encounters.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
The Assam government has failed to submit an additional affidavit with the Supreme Court of India and sought more time in the ongoing case over the alleged fake encounters in the state, sources familiar with the matter reported on Tuesday.
This comes after the apex court, while hearing the matter, had sought additional facts about the case. However, the government failed to provide information despite being given more time earlier.
The state government on Tuesday sought more time from the Supreme Court to submit the required affidavit. According to sources, the government sought three months for the same.
However, the court granted a further time period of two months and directed the government to file the affidavit within that time.
Meanwhile, the Assam government, in its previous affidavit, had mentioned about probing the alleged fake encounter cases. During today's hearing, the apex court also sought details of that investigation.
It may be noted that during a hearing on a petition challenging a Gauhati High Court order, the Supreme Court in May this year expressed apprehensions regarding investigations into alleged fake encounters in Assam.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan raised questions about the Assam government's adherence to guidelines for encounter investigations as outlined in the PUCL judgment.
The petitioner, Supreme Court lawyer Arif Jwadder, claimed that over 80 individuals have been killed in fake encounters in Assam since May 20, 2021.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued that the Assam police failed to follow proper procedure following encounters, emphasizing that the state deemed the PUCL guidelines non-mandatory for every encounter.
The Court expressed concerns regarding the fairness and transparency of the investigations and questioned the state on mechanisms to ensure compliance with the PUCL guidelines, soliciting suggestions for their enforcement.