{ "state": "Mizoram", "slug": "mizoram", "count": 4, "url": "https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/state/mizoram", "cases": [ { "record_id": "CW-2003-0024", "status": "overturned", "merged_id": "CWC-0957", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Sairang Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Mizoram and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Sairang Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Mizoram and Others", "state": "Mizoram", "district": "Aizawl", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Sairang, Aizawl", "police_station_or_unit": "Sairang Police Out-Post, Bawngkawn Police Station", "court": "Gauhati High Court", "court_as_verified": "Gauhati High Court", "bench": "Aizawl", "case_title": "Sairang Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Mizoram and Others", "case_number": null, "citation": "(2005) 1 GLR 265", "judges": [ "S.K. Kar" ], "judgment_date": "2003-12-08", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2003, "incident_date": "1995-03-12", "incident_year": 1995, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Police Act 1861 s.7", "IPC 307", "IPC 326", "Constitution Art. 226" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Assistant Sub-Inspector", "unit": "Sairang Police Out-Post, Bawngkawn Police Station", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "ledger:no_row", "key2:no_row" ], "ledger_role": null, "key2": null, "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": null, "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": null, "jev_p_culpable": null, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": null, "name_public": null, "display": "Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sairang Police Out-Post, Bawngkawn Police Station" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "age": null, "gender": "male", "name": null, "descriptor": "Sairang, Aizawl man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1392989/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) dismissed the writ petition of Mizoram Police ASI and sustained his removal from service. The court recorded that Yadav shot fellow ASI in the left thigh with his service revolver on 12.03.1995 after a dispute at Sairang out-post. It held the departmental findings rested on evidence, that the criminal acquittal (after witnesses were withheld following an out-of-court settlement) did not bar the penalty, and that removal by the Superintendent of Police as a coordinate authority was legal. Finding no violation of natural justice or bias, the court declined to interfere. Later proceedings: on 27 January 2006, the Gauhati High Court (Division Bench) set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning [name withheld]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) dismissed the writ petition of Mizoram Police ASI and sustained his removal from service. The court recorded that Yadav shot fellow ASI in the left thigh with his service revolver on 12.03.1995 after a dispute at Sairang out-post. It held the departmental findings rested on evidence, that the criminal acquittal (after witnesses were withheld following an out-of-court settlement) did not bar the penalty, and that removal by the Superintendent of Police as a coordinate authority was legal. Finding no violation of natural justice or bias, the court declined to interfere.", "court_quote": "Concluding, I find there is nothing wrong either in the disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner or in passing the order of his removal from service and thus the interference of the court is not called for.", "court_quote_para": "19", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Primary text verified: ASI's removal for shooting fellow ASI upheld; writ dismissed.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "2003-12-08", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Gauhati High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Gauhati High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(2005) 1 GLR 265", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "2006-01-27", "action_type": "Order set aside", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Gauhati High Court (Division Bench)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "Later proceedings: on 27 January 2006, the Gauhati High Court (Division Bench) set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning [name withheld]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.", "disposition": "Later proceeding · Conviction not standing", "source": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/430553/sn-yadav-vs-state-of-mizoram-and-others/", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [ { "court": "Gauhati High Court (Division Bench)", "date": "2006-01-27", "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/430553/sn-yadav-vs-state-of-mizoram-and-others/", "outcome": "conviction_set_aside" } ], "final_outcome_url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/430553/sn-yadav-vs-state-of-mizoram-and-others/", "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "holds", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1392989/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-69" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP2-41-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2020-0010", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0662", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Mizoram Police Constable v. State of Mizoram & Ors.", "display_title_redacted": "Mizoram Police Constable v. State of Mizoram & Ors.", "state": "Mizoram", "district": null, "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Mangaldai", "police_station_or_unit": "3rd India Reserve Battalion", "court": "Gauhati High Court", "court_as_verified": "Gauhati High Court", "bench": "Aizawl", "case_title": "Mizoram Police Constable v. State of Mizoram & Ors.", "case_number": "WP(C) No. 99 of 2020", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Michael Zothankhuma" ], "judgment_date": "2020-11-10", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2020, "incident_date": "2014-03-26", "incident_year": 2014, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Mizoram Police Act 2011 s.92" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "unit": "3rd India Reserve Battalion, Mizoram Police", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2:no", "key2_union:unclear", "key2_openrouter:unclear" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "no", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "unclear", "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "unclear", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.05, "jev_p_culpable": 0.96, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Constable, 3rd India Reserve Battalion, Mizoram Police" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 0, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-384745.pdf", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/gauhati-high-court-declines-relief-to-af-constable-dismissed-from-service-for-entering-church-165984", "https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=600202890100&title=m-s-dawngliana-vs-state-of-mizoram" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. Constable of the 3rd IR Battalion, posted at Mangaldai, was found intoxicated on CI Ops duty on 25 March 2014 and, on 26 March 2014, entered the battalion church in full uniform with his service rifle while drunk during a service, causing panic. Charge-sheeted under Section 92 of the Mizoram Police Act, 2011, he admitted the charges, and the Appellate Authority altered the penalty to removal from service, implemented on 8 September 2020. The Gauhati High Court held the disciplinary and appellate authorities were the sole judges of facts, found no illegality and a penalty that did not shock the conscience, and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Constable of the 3rd IR Battalion, posted at Mangaldai, was found intoxicated on CI Ops duty on 25 March 2014 and, on 26 March 2014, entered the battalion church in full uniform with his service rifle while drunk during a service, causing panic. Charge-sheeted under Section 92 of the Mizoram Police Act, 2011, he admitted the charges, and the Appellate Authority altered the penalty to removal from service, implemented on 8 September 2020. The Gauhati High Court held the disciplinary and appellate authorities were the sole judges of facts, found no illegality and a penalty that did not shock the conscience, and dismissed the writ petition.", "court_quote": "The petitioner being from a disciplined force, he should have known better than to enter a place of worship with a rifle, while being under the influence of alcohol, as the said act endangers the lives of the people inside the place of worship.", "court_quote_para": "22", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Gauhati HC (Aizawl Bench) dismissed writ, upheld removal of drunk-on-duty constable who entered church with rifle.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "2020-11-10", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Gauhati High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Gauhati High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "WP(C) No. 99 of 2020", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "holds", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-384745.pdf", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/gauhati-high-court-declines-relief-to-af-constable-dismissed-from-service-for-entering-church-165984", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=600202890100&title=m-s-dawngliana-vs-state-of-mizoram", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-46" ], "merged_case_id": "SWOTHERM-026", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2026-0091", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1376", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Mizoram Police Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors", "display_title_redacted": "Mizoram Police Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors", "state": "Mizoram", "district": "Aizawl", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": "Mizoram Police (ministerial establishment)", "court": "Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench)", "court_as_verified": "Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench)", "bench": null, "case_title": "Mizoram Police Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors", "case_number": "WP(C)/169/2019", "citation": "2026:GAU-MZ:303", "judges": [ "Sanjeev Kumar Sharma" ], "judgment_date": "2026-06-12", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2026, "incident_date": null, "incident_year": null, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rule 1037 Mizoram Police Manual", "Rule 10(7) CCS (CCA) Rules", "FR 54(5)" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial)", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Mizoram Police", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "name_public": null, "display": "Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial), Mizoram Police" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 0, "sentence_type": "imprisonment", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174883276/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The petitioner was ministerial staff of the Mizoram Police who faced charges of diversion of public funds and underwent successive dismissal and reinstatement rounds. The High Court held that the earlier dismissal orders had been set aside only on procedural grounds and the petitioner had already been restored with liberty for fresh proceedings. The High Court held that the 2016 compulsory-retirement penalty with compassionate pension stood and the intervening suspension periods were rightly treated as non-countable. The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking counting of about 11 years and 14 days of suspension with back benefits.", "summary_verified": "The petitioner was ministerial staff of the Mizoram Police who faced charges of diversion of public funds and underwent successive dismissal and reinstatement rounds. The High Court held that the earlier dismissal orders had been set aside only on procedural grounds and the petitioner had already been restored with liberty for fresh proceedings. The High Court held that the 2016 compulsory-retirement penalty with compassionate pension stood and the intervening suspension periods were rightly treated as non-countable. The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking counting of about 11 years and 14 days of suspension with back benefits.", "court_quote": "I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which accordingly stands dismissed.", "court_quote_para": "as reported on IndianKanoon doc/174883276", "confidence": "medium", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Case title is incorrect: the Indian Kanoon record shows '[name withheld] vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors', not '[name withheld] vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors'. The court did not anonymize the case name. If the researcher intended to anonymize the officer's name, this should be noted separately, but the actual case title should be faithfully reproduced.; The officer's name ([name withheld]) appears in the case title on the judgment but was replaced with '[name withheld]' in the entry. This is inconsistent with the actual record. Anonymization of a convicted/penalized officer is not standard practice for this register unless he is a victim of police misconduct, which he is not.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "2026-06-12", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) recorded adverse findings against police personnel.", "disposition": "disciplinary upheld", "source": "2026:GAU-MZ:303", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-24", "scope": "Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark)." } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-24", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174883276/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": false, "verified_by": [ "swarm-verify-cop-mz-hc" ], "merged_case_id": "cop-mz-hc-1", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2026-0090", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1375", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Smt. Aizawl Woman vs The State Of Mizoram And 7 Ors", "display_title_redacted": "Smt. Aizawl Woman vs The State Of Mizoram And 7 Ors", "state": "Mizoram", "district": "Aizawl", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": "Vaivakawn Police Station; Mizoram Police Media Cell", "court": "Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench)", "court_as_verified": "Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench)", "bench": null, "case_title": "Smt. Aizawl Woman vs The State Of Mizoram And 7 Ors", "case_number": "WP(C)/12/2026", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Rajesh Mazumdar" ], "judgment_date": "2026-08-27", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2026, "incident_date": null, "incident_year": null, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "adverse_finding", "sections": [ "Section 326(g)/324(5)/191(2) BNS", "Section 129 CrPC", "Section 153A IPC", "Article 226 Constitution of India" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Officer-in-Charge", "role": "named_in_finding", "unit": "Vaivakawn Police Station, Mizoram Police", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "name_public": null, "display": "Officer-in-Charge, Vaivakawn Police Station, Mizoram Police" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Chief Public Relations Officer / Inspector General of Police (Hqrs)", "role": "named_in_finding", "unit": "Mizoram Police Media Cell", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "name_public": null, "display": "Chief Public Relations Officer / Inspector General of Police (Hqrs), Mizoram Police Media Cell" } ], "officer_count": 2, "victims": [ { "name": null, "gender": "female", "descriptor": "Aizawl woman" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": null, "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134279893/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The High Court held that the Mizoram Police press release naming the petitioner's late husband as the central suspect violated the police media-briefing protocol. The High Court held that the release disclosed evidence theories, forensic details and investigative tactics beyond permissible limits. The High Court held that police personnel on the spot failed to maintain law and order when a mob stoned, torched and looted the petitioner's rented home. The High Court ordered recall of the press release, circulation of the briefing manual, supervised investigation of the mob attack, and assessment of the claimed property loss of Rs. 7,61,130 by a court-appointed assessor.", "summary_verified": "The High Court held that the Mizoram Police press release naming the petitioner's late husband as the central suspect violated the police media-briefing protocol. The High Court held that the release disclosed evidence theories, forensic details and investigative tactics beyond permissible limits. The High Court held that police personnel on the spot failed to maintain law and order when a mob stoned, torched and looted the petitioner's rented home. The High Court ordered recall of the press release, circulation of the briefing manual, supervised investigation of the mob attack, and assessment of the claimed property loss of Rs. 7,61,130 by a court-appointed assessor.", "court_quote": "The protocol laid down by the police manual was violated when disclosure beyond the permissible factors had been made.", "court_quote_para": "as reported on IndianKanoon doc/134279893", "confidence": "medium", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Section 129 CrPC and Section 153A IPC are cited in the judgment, but the entry lists 'Section 129 BNS' and 'Section 153A BNS' — BNS codes are incorrect for these sections; the judgment uses CrPC/IPC references. It appears the modern BNS equivalent was substituted rather than the actual cited section.; The statute 'Section 129 BNS' does not exist in BNS (which has no Section 129); Section 129 CrPC is the correct citation used in the judgment.; Section 153A IPC is cited in the judgment, not 'Section 153A BNS'. While BNS replaced IPC, the judgment uses IPC numbering and the researcher should faithfully reproduce the sections as cited by the court.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "2026-08-27", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) recorded adverse findings against police personnel.", "disposition": "adverse finding compensation", "source": "WP(C)/12/2026", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-24", "scope": "Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark)." } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-24", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134279893/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": false, "verified_by": [ "swarm-verify-cop-mz-hc" ], "merged_case_id": "cop-mz-hc-0", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" } ] }