Back
Refuses to Reconstitute Panel Probing CJP Protest Violence in Delhi
The on firmly rejected requests to reconstitute the investigating alleged police excesses during student protests led by the in Delhi, calling the objections "." A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana directed the panel to focus on key issues including the use of pellet guns, harassment of female protesters, and property destruction, while ordering strict measures.
Background: The Jantar Mantar Protests and Formation of HPEC
The controversy stems from a CJP-led protest march on that turned violent as demonstrators clashed with security personnel near Parliament. The protests, which began at Jantar Mantar on , were called off on after the government accepted key demands. The on constituted the five-member HPEC, headed by former judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy, to examine allegations of police brutality against protesters as well as violence against police personnel. The committee also includes former Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former judge Shalinder Kaur, former director Rishi Kumar Shukla, and retired Meghalaya DGP L.R. Bishnoi.
Arguments: Allegations of
Several petitioners sought reconstitution of the HPEC, arguing that one member—a former DGP from a northeastern state—had a "" due to his close friendship with a high functionary likely to be investigated. echoed these concerns, while opposed the application, urging the court to disregard what he termed baseless allegations.
Legal Analysis: Court Upholds Panel's Impartiality
The bench expressed "some measure of disquiet" at the aspersions cast on the committee, emphasizing that the objections were founded on "
." The court stated unequivocally:
"It must be understood by one and all that the HPEC has been constituted to assist this Court with the highest standards of
and with a
. The HPEC is not created to espouse the causes of one or the other party before us."
The court declined to alter the committee's composition, noting that the prayer for reconstitution was made before the HPEC had even embarked on its enquiry.
The bench further clarified the scope of the enquiry, directing the HPEC to first investigate: the use of pellet guns, targeted violence and harassment of female protesters, and excessive violence and destruction of property on both sides. Broader constitutional questions were kept aside for later consideration by the court.
Key Observations
"We are constrained to observe, with some measure of disquiet, that aspersions have been cast upon the HPEC in a manner that is both ."
"The HPEC has been constituted to assist this Court with the highest standards of and with a ."
"Utmost confidentiality shall be maintained in respect of any statements given or evidence submitted by such to the HPEC."
and Procedural Directions
To safeguard witnesses, the court directed that vulnerable individuals be extended due protection and their identities kept confidential. The HPEC may create a separate online portal for secure submission of documents and evidence. The bench also appointed and as to represent the HPEC and act as independent arbiters between parties. The committee was requested to appoint a Member Secretary at the earliest to facilitate logistical support.
Separate Direction for Minor Protestor
In a related matter, the court took note of threats made to a 14-year-old female protestor and her family. It directed the to assess the threat perception, provide necessary protection, and conduct an against the alleged miscreants. A must be filed before the next hearing on .
Implications
The 's refusal to reconstitute the HPEC underscores the judiciary's confidence in the committee's independence and expertise. The specific directions on set a precedent for handling in inquiries involving state authorities. The HPEC is expected to submit its first report at the earliest, while the broader constitutional issues remain pending before the court.
