Back
Supreme Court Asks Committee to Work, Defers Plea to Reconstitute Probe Panel on CJP Violence
The on Tuesday declined to immediately entertain a plea seeking the reconstitution of the five-member appointed to investigate allegations of police excesses and violence during the protests by the at Jantar Mantar. Instead, the bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed that the committee be allowed to function under the court's supervision, while agreeing to list the application for consideration next week.
The HPEC was constituted by the Supreme Court on , following multiple petitions demanding an impartial probe into the violent clashes between protesters and police. The committee, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy, includes former Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former judge Shalinder Kaur, former Director Rishi Kumar Shukla, and retired Meghalaya Director General of Police L.R. Bishnoi. Its terms of reference cover a wide range of allegations, including the use of excessive force by police, deployment of pellet guns, sexual assault of female protesters, and corresponding claims of violence against police personnel and damage to public property.
Petitioners’ Challenge to Committee Composition
, appearing for some of the petitioners, raised the matter before a bench also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana. He sought urgent listing of an application that questions the composition of the HPEC. The application argues that several non-judicial members of the committee lack and have a “long association” with the executive authorities, including the Union Home Minister. The petitioners contend that such associations create a “” and could compromise the impartiality expected from the inquiry.
Specifically, the application suggests that the committee should be headed by a retired Chief Justice of India and that its non-judicial members should have an established record of independence and impeccable integrity. The petitioners clarified that their objection is not directed at the personal integrity of the current members but raises a about whether the present composition has sufficient independence and professional expertise for the task at hand.
Solicitor General’s Sharp Opposition
strongly opposed the plea, describing it as “very mischievous” and politically motivated. He argued that the application sought not only the reconstitution of the committee but also an investigation into specific ministers, effectively turning the proceeding into a . “This is not a . Something else is happening… Some people have perennial problems with everything,” Mehta submitted before the bench.
The Solicitor General further pointed out that the petitioners had even named specific judges they would prefer to head the reconstituted committee, a practice the court does not appreciate. His opposition was supported by the Chief Justice, who immediately cautioned against mentioning judges’ names during the proceedings.
Court’s Measured Response
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant intervened firmly, stating, “We don’t appreciate mentioning of judges’ names.” Sankaranarayanan assured the court that he had not submitted any such material and would refrain from naming individuals even when the application is taken up for hearing. , appearing for another group of petitioners, supported the request for listing, asserting that the concerns reflected a wider apprehension among the petitioners about the committee’s independence.
In response, the Chief Justice defended the court’s choice of members, noting that the Supreme Court had selected the best available persons for the assignment. He emphasized that the committee would function under the court’s oversight and with the assistance of all parties to the case. “Whoever will work, will work under our supervision. We have not disposed of the matter. All of you are there to assist the committee. Let them work and see,” the CJI said, agreeing to list the application for further consideration early next month.
The Committee’s Mandate
The HPEC has been tasked with examining allegations from both sides of the violence. On a priority basis, the Supreme Court directed the committee to investigate reports of targeted violence, harassment, and molestation of female protesters. Other critical issues include the desirability of banning metal kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action rifles, given the grave and often irreversible bodily harm they cause. The panel will also assess whether police and security personnel should be required to wear proper uniforms and visible nameplates during arrests and crowd-control operations to ensure accountability.
Additionally, the committee will look into allegations of monitoring and surveillance of protesters by police, examining whether such measures were consistent with constitutional rights to privacy and free assembly. The provision of medical support and compensation to victims of alleged police abuse, as well as the injuries sustained by police personnel and the mental trauma endured by their families, also fall within the committee’s scope.
Legal Implications and Broader Context
The dispute over the committee’s composition raises fundamental questions about the in high-powered inquiry panels. While the Supreme Court has the to constitute such committees to ensure a fair and impartial investigation, the petitioners’ challenge underscores the sensitivity of probes involving allegations against senior police and executive officials. The outcome of this application could set a precedent for how courts structure inquiry panels, particularly when their members have prior associations with the very executive being investigated.
For legal professionals, the case highlights the procedural interplay between writ petitions under and the court’s power to appoint commissions. It also emphasizes the importance of ensuring not only actual independence but also the in such committees, especially when dealing with politically charged matters. The court’s decision to defer the plea while retaining reflects a cautious approach, allowing the committee to commence its work without delay while leaving the door open for further arguments.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court is expected to take up the application for reconstitution in early September. Meanwhile, the HPEC has already begun its work, with the court’s direction that all parties assist the committee. The panel’s findings, once submitted, will carry significant weight in determining legal accountability for the violence that erupted during the protests. As the matter unfolds, the legal community will closely watch how the court navigates the tension between institutional trust and the demand for unassailable impartiality.
