Top court: HCS may form probe panels on CAA stir
STAND Asks petitioners to approach high courts in states where violence was reported
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Tuesday declined to set up a committee of a retired apex court judge to inquire into the incidents of violent protests in different parts of the country against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and said that such panels may be appointed by the high courts concerned.
It directed all the petitioners to approach high courts in respective states, where the incidents of violence have occurred, for redressal of their grievances and the setting up of inquiry committees.
A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde noted in its order that each fact alleged by the petitioners is disputed, on behalf of the Centre, by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Two main concerns of the petitioners have been that the students were indiscriminately arrested and they are injured and not getting proper medical treatment, the bench noted.
The Solicitor General stated however that only two students from Aligarh Muslim University have been hospitalised and they are being treated at the University hospital itself and were not injured by the police, which was contested by the petitioners.
Taking note of the allegations and counter-allegations, the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant, said: “Regarding the nature of the dispute and the incidents that have occurred we find it appropriate to appoint single committee in each state to collect the material for fact finding and we therefore consider this appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the high courts of jurisdiction of incidents said to have occurred.
“We are confident that the Chief Justices of various high courts will call upon for inquiry, if needed, while appointing a committee including a former judge of the apex court or high court after hearing the union of India and respective states” The bench clarified that it is needless to say that “high court will be at liberty to pass appropriate order with regard to arrest and medical treatment if brought to its notice after verification”.
The bench noted that serious grievance has been raised by the petitioners that Vice Chancellors of the Universities concerned were being ignored by police while taking action against the students.
The bench also took on record that this fact is also denied by Solicitor General.
“We are sure that high court will look into all the aspects of the matter after hearing both sides and appointing appropriate committee to determine the fact finding”.
The Solicitor General made a categorical statement that no student had been arrested so far. However, he said he cannot make any statement about the future.
While the arguments were being made, the bench said: “We have disclosed our mind (that incidents of each states will go to the respective high court).” While refusing to appoint a committee of a retired judge of the apex court as was done in the Telengana encounter case, the bench said, “No parallel can be drawn between them.
In Telangana, one committee could have gone into the incident but in the incidents of violence by the protesting students at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University or any other place, it is not possible as the issue of jurisdiction will arise.” “We therefore decline your prayer,” the bench told a battery of senior advocates appearing on behalf of the protesting students.
The bench refused to consider the newspaper reports to entertain the petitions on the issue. “We are not going to read newspapers. We are not going to rely on newspapers to arrive at judicial decisions,” the bench said.