6 days ago
Supreme Court Rejects Bias Plea in Jantar Mantar Probe
The Supreme Court is investigating what happened during protests at Jantar Mantar.
Some protesters’ lawyers worried that one committee member might not be neutral.
They said R. Bishnoi was friends with an important person whose actions could be investigated.
The lawyers also wanted a former Chief Justice of India to lead the committee.
The court did not agree to change the committee.
It said people should not assume that a court-appointed committee will be unfair.
The court asked the committee to provide regular updates.
It also requested the first interim report as soon as possible, but gave no deadline.
The Supreme Court refused to reconstitute the high-powered committee investigating violence at Jantar Mantar.
Petitioners sought the replacement of retired police chief R. Bishnoi over alleged possible bias.
They also asked that the committee be headed by a former Chief Justice of India.
The court said the bias concern appeared misplaced and rejected presuming the panel would act improperly.
The committee was asked to submit periodic findings and its first interim report as soon as possible.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, petitioners represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, and a high-powered enquiry committee headed by former Supreme Court judge R. Subhash Reddy.
- What
- The court rejected a request to reconstitute the committee investigating alleged police excesses and violence connected to protests at Jantar Mantar.
- Where
- The proceedings concern events at Jantar Mantar and protests across the country.
- When
- The decision was reported on Thursday; the committee was constituted on August 18.
- Why
- The petitioners alleged possible bias by committee member R. Bishnoi and sought a different committee chair and member.
Petitioners’ Position
Supreme Court’s Position
Alleged committee bias
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners argued that R. Bishnoi should be replaced because of his alleged friendship with a senior functionary whose conduct may be investigated.
Supreme Court’s Position
The court said the apprehension of bias was prima facie misplaced and that a court-appointed committee should not be presumed to act improperly.
Leadership of the committee
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners wanted the panel to be headed by a former Chief Justice of India rather than a retired Supreme Court judge.
Supreme Court’s Position
The court did not agree to reconstitute the panel or change its leadership.
Transparency and progress
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners sought safeguards they believed would ensure an impartial inquiry.
Supreme Court’s Position
The court requested periodic reports and the first interim report at the earliest, without setting a deadline.
Key facts
- Committee chair
- Former Supreme Court judge R. Subhash Reddy
- Disputed member
- R. Bishnoi, a retired director-general of police of the Meghalaya government
- Petitioners’ concern
- They alleged that Bishnoi’s friendship with a high-ranking functionary could create bias.
- Court’s response
- The bench said the apprehension of bias appeared misplaced.
- Requested report
- The committee must submit periodic reports and its first interim report at the earliest.
- Deadline
- The court did not set a timeframe for the first interim report.
- Investigation scope
- Allegations include excessive police force, use of Section 152 BNS, pellet guns, and criminal infiltration of protests.
Sources
Related news
NEET-UG Petitioners Seek Reconstitution of Jantar Mantar Probe Panel
Supreme Court Prioritises Jantar Mantar Pellet-Use Probe
Supreme Court Rejects Changes to NEET Protest Probe Panel
Supreme Court Keeps Delhi Protest Violence Panel Intact
Supreme Court Panel to Probe Force During NEET Protests
Former Supreme Court Judge to Lead Jantar Mantar Protest Inquiry
India Needs Climate Displacement Law as Delta Communities Vanish
India Live Updates: Arrest, Maratha Quota Deadline, Cabinet Meet
Tamil Nadu Plans to End Natural Ganesh Idol Immersion
Supreme Court Criticizes Government Over Disabled Soldiers’ Pension Denials
