Manipur encounter: SC no to plea on judges’ recusal
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICERS , MUKUL ROHATGI CONTENDED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT PREVIOUSLY MADE THE OFFICERS THINK THAT THERE WAS A BIAS AGAINST THEM
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed an application filed by over 700 serving and retired army personnel seeking the recusal of two judges from hearing the Manipur encounter cases being investigated by a special investigation team (SIT) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the court’s supervision.
A bench of justices MB Lokur and UU Lalit refused to accept the plea of officers asking the judges to stop hearing the matter and let it be placed before another bench.
The applicants referred to oral observations made by the bench. The Union government supported the plea for recusal and the submission that officers of the Indian army were demoralized by the court’s observations. The application was filed along with petitions questioning the SC judgement on the dilution of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in disturbed areas. They said remarks against use of AFSPA in such areas would jeopardize army operations against ultras and endanger national security.
The bench termed the submission made in the application as “overboard.”
“To contend that some observations said to have been made by this Court have demoralized the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police is suggestive of a weakness in them. Be that as it may, this is really stretching the argument to the vanishing point,” the court said.
Appearing on behalf of the officers , Mukul Rohatgi contended that the observations of the court previously made the officers think that there was a bias against them.
In July, the bench, while hearing a case on extra-judicial killings in Manipur, the court asked CBI whey it had not acted upon the officers despite serious charges such as murder having been pressed against them.
The court was reviewing the progress of the federal investigation agency in looking into around 1520 encounters over a period of 20 years. Another bench headed by Justice Lokur had, in 2016, decided to ask CBI to investigate these.
“In any event, in our opinion, it should be clear to everyone that officers and personnel of the Indian Army, paramilitary forces and the State Police are made of much sterner stuff than is sought to be projected and they can hardly be demoralized by observations said to have been made by anybody. It is unfortunate that a bogey of demoralization of the Indian Army, paramilitary forces and the State Police is being raised,” the court said.
The bench fixed November 26 to hear the petitions against its ruling on AFSPA. NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Monday declined early hearing of the petitions in the Ram Janmabhoomi-babri Masjid title dispute case, saying it has already listed them in January next year. The apex court on October 29 had fixed the case for the first week of January before an “appropriate bench”, which will decide the schedule of hearing.
“We have already passed the order. The appeals are coming up in January. Permission declined,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul said while rejecting request of early hearing the cases. The plea for early hearing was mentioned by lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha, representing Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM), one of the respondents in the appeal filed by legal heirs of M Siddiq in the case.
“Since Ram Janambhoomi at Ayodhya is the matter of tremendous faith of Hindus, they are very much hopeful about the decision at an early date of the aforesaid appeals,” said the plea. The case is of great concern for both Hindus and Muslims and the pendency of these cases have earlier caused communal disharmony, it said. A three-judge bench of the SC had on October 29, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement of the Allahabad HC that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.