JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. The two writ Petitioners, who are members of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association, have approached this Court in this public interest litigation for drawing attention of this Court in respect of an incident that took place on October 30, 2002 within the heart of the Guwahati City, which resulted in death of two persons namely, Speed Hazarika of Nagaon and Mithu Barua of Nalbari, alleged to be members of a banned organization. 2. Facts, leading to the above incident, as disclosed from the materials on record, and which are not disputed, are that one Md. Abedur Rahman of Hatigaon, a businessman, was subjected to extortion and some demands were made for extorting money from him. It may be mentioned that the said Rahman was earlier abducted from Kamalpur area and it is suspected or believed that he was released from captivity on payment of certain amount of ransom. On information being lodged by said Abedur Rahman, he was kept under vigil and on the date of occurrence, the said Abedur Rahman was asked by the militants to proceed to a particular area of Hatigaon Chariali. The direction was given over telephone and accordingly Mr. Rahman proceeded towards that place followed by the police personnel in civil dress. While he was so proceeding, two persons were seen coming in a Rickshaw from the opposite direction, who started firing on the police personnel. May be they could recognize the police personnel in civil dress. Police also opened fire and both the youth abandoned the rickshaw and started running towards Ajanta Path. The police chased them. One of the youth, Speed Hazarika fell to the bullet fired by police, but other person entered into the residence of one Aftabuddin Ahmed and locked himself inside a room. There were some exchange of fire between them and ultimately the other youth was also shot dead. In the meantime, higher police officials also arrived at the spot and necessary follow up actions were taken. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that as the police had prior information, they could have easily apprehended the culprits alive. It is submitted that at least one of them namely, Mithu Barua, who was cornered in a room of a house, could have been captured alive and killing of a person in inhuman manner needs to be deprecated. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that as the police had prior information, they could have easily apprehended the culprits alive. It is submitted that at least one of them namely, Mithu Barua, who was cornered in a room of a house, could have been captured alive and killing of a person in inhuman manner needs to be deprecated. More over, after the killing, the dead bodies were removed in a most inhuman and indecent manner as such the Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: (i) To direct an enquiry to be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation; (ii) To grant adequate compensation to the kith and kin of the deceased persons; (iii) To direct the Respondent authorities not to kill a militant in unnecessary manner; and (iv) To take effective steps for training the police personnel to combat in urban and densely populated area. 4. Shri Harekrishna Deka, who was the Director General of Police at the relevant time, has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein the incident of October 30, 2002 and the broad facts leading to the death of the two youths have been admitted. It is stated that the two militants first fired upon the police and in retaliation of which, the police opened fire in self-defence. 5. Respondent No. 5, Shri P.C. Neog, the then Superintendent of Police, Kamrup and Respondent No. 6 Shri Rana Bhuyan have filed separate affidavits-in-opposition wherein the broad facts as stated above have been admitted. 6. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that the Assam Human Rights Commission, for short,' AHRC', had taken suo motu cognizance of the above incident and AHRC Case No. 42/2002 was registered and the Commission gave its judgment vide order dated 1.3.2005. At the direction of the AHRC, Shri D.K. Borah, IPS, Inspector General of Police conducted a public enquiry and also collected video clippings, which were recorded by the T.V. Channel media persons. Shri Borah was not happy in non-registration of case at Dispur Police Station in respect of kidnapping of Md. At the direction of the AHRC, Shri D.K. Borah, IPS, Inspector General of Police conducted a public enquiry and also collected video clippings, which were recorded by the T.V. Channel media persons. Shri Borah was not happy in non-registration of case at Dispur Police Station in respect of kidnapping of Md. Abedur Rahman, but the Commission was of the view that Shri Rahman was kidnapped from Kamalpur area and as such Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 191/02 under Section 365/307 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act had been registered at Kamalpur Police Station and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181 , it did not find any fault with the Superintendent of Police Shri P.C. Neog in giving direction not to register a case at Dispur. 7. So far the killing of Speed Hazarika is concerned there is no submission by the learned Counsel that resort to firing by the police on him was unwarranted. It was, however, submitted that the second encounter leading to death of Mithu Barua could have been averted and he could have been apprehended alive. Learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the report of Shri D.K. Borah, Inspector General of Police, who found fault with Shri P.C. Neog, the then Superintendent of Police in the manner in which Mithu Barua was killed. It is submitted that Mithu Barua could have been asked to surrender as he was all alone inside the house and as such he could have been made to surrender. The AHRC, however, refused to accept the observations of Shri Bora. The video clippings were also seen by the AHRC and the Commission observed as follows: We are unable to accept the above observations of Shri Borah in view of the circumstances which were prevailing at that time. The militant boy started, firing causing injuries to two persons and even though he said that he could surrender, he did not do so inspite of asking by the police to lay down arms and come out. According to Mr. Borah second chance should have been given to the militant boy to surrender. This is also unacceptable to us in view of the situation prevailing at that time. According to Mr. Borah second chance should have been given to the militant boy to surrender. This is also unacceptable to us in view of the situation prevailing at that time. There was no need for use of Public Address System as the police party was just outside the room where the militant boy was hiding and not at a distance. Moreover, that he wanted to surrender was clearly heard by police and he was given chance to lay down arms, which he did not. Sri. Borah has referred to the video recording which has been sent to this Commission. Both of us have seen the video clippings and we could see that all police party outside the room were very tense which was normal considering the situation at that time and nobody could know what other weapons like bomb etc. might have been with the militant boy. Accordingly, we hold that action taken by police in case of second encounter was justified. 8. Shri Goswami, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 has submitted that the Superintendent of Police had asked the youth (Mithu Barua) to surrender, but the militant kept mum and stayed inside the house. He was firing from the weapon in his possession. The incident took place in a densely populated area and the security of not only police officer, but also other civilians was at stake. As a matter of fact in the above exchange of fire some civilians were also injured. 9. Lord Denning in his widely read treatise LANDMARK IN THE LAW, while speaking on the topic-'When our freedom is attacked, has this to say- I trust that I have been as vigilant as anyone to preserve the freedom of the individual. But I have to confess that it has on occasion had to take second place. If our society is attacked by one or more who would destroy us and our freedoms, then we must have the means to defend ourselves. We must stop them at every point of their attack, before they launch their offensive if we can and after it is launched. If the danger is grave and imminent, we may have to detain them without trial, we may have to act on secret intelligence; and we may have to modify the rules of natural justice. All this may be necessary to protect ourselves lest we ourselves be destroyed. If the danger is grave and imminent, we may have to detain them without trial, we may have to act on secret intelligence; and we may have to modify the rules of natural justice. All this may be necessary to protect ourselves lest we ourselves be destroyed. The author continued "All this is very contrary to the fundamental principle of natural justice. But natural justice must take second place in extreme cases to the national security. By which I mean, it must take second place to the duty of the State to protect the lives of the ordinary people." 10. The situation as regards the second encounter was something like exercise of right of private defence of the body (person) under Section 100 IPC. The youth was armed and he was continuing to fire by keeping himself secured inside the house and the police were concerned about their own security as well as security of the civilians. Retaliatory measures taken by the police at that point of time cannot be weighed in the golden scale and the theory this far and no further could not have been applied. Police could not have taken the risk of losing the lives of other civilians, as we find that as a result of firing by the deceased, one civilian had already sustained bullet injury on his legs. 11. During the course of argument, it was submitted that from the video clippings and publications in the news papers, it was seen that Shri P.C. Neog, the then Superintendent of Police was seen clapping after the killing of the youth Mithu. It was submitted that this was not a good gesture on his part because it was interpreted as if the Superintendent of Police was rejoicing the killing of a young person. The clapping part is not disputed. However, it is explained by Shri Neog by stating that clapping is a 'signal' given in police and military operations. According to Mr. Neog, he clapped to signal closure of the operation to the police personnel. In view of the explanation, we do not propose to consider the above aspect any further. 12. The clapping part is not disputed. However, it is explained by Shri Neog by stating that clapping is a 'signal' given in police and military operations. According to Mr. Neog, he clapped to signal closure of the operation to the police personnel. In view of the explanation, we do not propose to consider the above aspect any further. 12. In consideration of the fact that some civilians as well as commando personnel were also injured in the firing by the militant, we are constrained to reject the submission of the Petitioner that the second encounter could have been avoided or that Mithu could have been apprehended alive by putting the life of police as well as civilian in jeopardy. 13. After the operation was over, the police also engaged services of sweepers to remove the dead bodies and the dead bodies were removed in a most incident and undignified manner. The AHRC also recorded its shock and horror as regards the manner the two dead bodies were carried by the two sweepers sent by the police. The sweepers, however, claim that they usually carry the dead body in the above manner only. The Respondents have not brought on record any document to show as to whether any procedure have been laid down for carrying/removing dead bodies from a public place. The AHRC had also advised the police to prevent recurrence of such incident in future. 14. There is no dispute at the Bar that the manner in which the dead bodies were removed in the present case and usually removed in other cases of encounter, disaster etc. there must be some concerted efforts that basic human dignity is observed and followed. Once a person dies, it remains mere a dead body and full respect is required to be shown. Considering the fact that till date no guideline or procedure has been laid down by the Government, we direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, the Home Secretary to the Govt. of Assam and the Director General of Police, Assam to sit together and prescribe a detail procedure as regards removal of dead bodies from public place at the time of disaster etc. in proper and dignified manner. The process shall be completed preferably within a period of three months. 15. of Assam and the Director General of Police, Assam to sit together and prescribe a detail procedure as regards removal of dead bodies from public place at the time of disaster etc. in proper and dignified manner. The process shall be completed preferably within a period of three months. 15. Coming to the prayer for handing over of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation, we find that the Dispur Police Station Case No. 108/02 as well as U.D. Case No. 86/02 were registered and investigated and there was an enquiry by a highly placed officer in the rank of Inspector General of Police and so far the broad facts are concerned, there is no dispute and hence, we are of the considered view that no case is made out for giving a direction for further investigation by the CBI. 16. As regards the prayer for payment of compensation to the kith and kin of the deceased, we find that the incident took place in the year 2002 and although we are in 2006 no one has come forward from the family members of the deceased to claim compensation. As such no such matter needs consideration at this stage. 17. There cannot be two opinions that it is the bounden duly of the State to protect its citizen and when society is attacked by acts of terrorism, the State is required to provide necessary security. Moreover, when any such terrorist activities occur in a densely populated area, the security personnel are also required to take all necessary precautions so that innocent citizens are protected. They being easy target, they may not be the sacrificial lamb to pay the price by way of losing their limbs or life. In the modern days when sophisticated arms and ammunitions and technology are available to all sundries, the responsibilities of the State to train up its personnel to remain vigil to counter such insurgent elements need to be given top priority. The State is, therefore, directed to take all necessary steps in the matter so that police force is well trained up to meet the challenges and the public feels secured. 18. The writ petition stands closed as aforesaid.