1 hr ago
Supreme Court Keeps Panel Probing Delhi Protest Violence Intact
The Supreme Court decided that the committee investigating violence during student protests should remain unchanged.
Some petitioners had argued that one committee member might have a conflict of interest.
The Court said those concerns were based on guesses made before the investigation had properly started.
It said the committee must be fair, transparent, and neutral.
The committee will investigate alleged police violence and violence by protesters.
It will look at claims involving pellet guns, targeted attacks, harassment of female protesters, and property damage.
People who give evidence, especially vulnerable witnesses, should have their identities protected.
The Court also ordered police to protect a 14-year-old protester and her family after reported threats.
The committee must begin its work and assist the Court with its findings.
The Supreme Court refused to reconstitute a five-member committee investigating alleged police excesses during Delhi’s CJP-led student protests.
The bench said objections to the panel were based on conjecture and preconceived notions raised before its inquiry had begun.
The committee will examine pellet-gun use, targeted violence, harassment of female protesters, and violence or property destruction by either side.
Vulnerable witnesses must receive protection, confidentiality, and potentially a separate online portal for submitting evidence.
The Delhi Police was directed to assess threats against a 14-year-old protester and her family and submit a status report before October 9.
- Who
- The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, petitioners seeking reconstitution, the five-member HPEC, protesters, and Delhi Police.
- What
- The Court refused to reconstitute the HPEC and directed it to investigate alleged police excesses and violence during student protests.
- Where
- Delhi, including Jantar Mantar and the Parliament march route.
- When
- The relevant order was dated September 10 and uploaded online on September 16; the next hearing is scheduled for October 9.
- Why
- The Court said the objections were based on conjecture and preconceived notions raised before the committee had begun its inquiry.
Petitioners’ Concerns
Court and Government Position
Whether the panel should be reconstituted
Petitioners’ Concerns
Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that a panel member, a former northeastern-state police chief, may have a conflict of interest because of an alleged friendship with a high functionary who could face investigation.
Court and Government Position
The Supreme Court rejected reconstitution, saying the objections were conjectural and premature and that the panel’s composition reflected its members’ expertise, experience, and diversity.
Role and neutrality of the committee
Petitioners’ Concerns
The petitioners sought changes to address concerns about the committee’s independence before its investigation proceeded.
Court and Government Position
The Court said the HPEC was created only to assist it through a fair, transparent, and dispassionate inquiry, not to advance either party’s interests.
Conduct during the protests
Petitioners’ Concerns
The allegations under examination include excessive police force, pellet-gun use, targeted violence, and harassment of protesters.
Court and Government Position
The inquiry will also examine excessive violence and destruction of property by either side, as well as violence against security personnel.
Key facts
- Committee chairperson
- Former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy
- Committee members
- Ravi Shankar Jha, Shalinder Kaur, Rishi Kumar Shukla, and L R Bishnoi, alongside the chairperson
- Inquiry scope
- Pellet-gun use, targeted violence, harassment of female protesters, and violence or property destruction by either side
- Witness protections
- Vulnerable witnesses’ identities and evidence must be kept confidential; a separate online portal may be created
- Court-appointed assistance
- Senior Advocate Monika Gusain and Advocate C Solomon will assist the Court and act as independent arbiters
- Child-safety direction
- Delhi Police must assess threats against a 14-year-old protester and her family, provide protection, and investigate alleged harassment
- Committee reporting
- The HPEC must appoint a member secretary and submit its first report at the earliest
Quotes
Supreme Court bench
The bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
“With respect to the concerns voiced over the treatment of witnesses and of those who may wish to come forward before the HPEC to furnish their account and voice their grievances, we request the HPEC that such vulnerable witnesses be extended due protection and their identities be kept confidential and undisclosed.”
deccanchronicle.com
theprint.in
“We direct the Delhi Police to assess the threat perception and provide the necessary protection to the said child and her family so as to secure her safety, and to expeditiously conduct an investigation against such anti-social elements who are allegedly threatening or harassing her and her family.”
republicworld.com
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court Panel to Probe Force During NEET Protests
Supreme Court Forms Panel to Probe Police Action During Protests
Supreme Court Rejects Changes to NEET Protest Probe Panel
Pleas Seek Reconstitution of Panel Probing Police Excesses Against Protesters
Supreme Court Panel to Probe Delhi NEET Protest Police Excesses
Supreme Court Forms Panel to Probe Jantar Mantar Police Excesses
Tarun Tejpal Surrenders in Goa, Appeal Set for Supreme Court
Girl at Centre of Bhardwaj Arrest Appeals for Security
Supreme Court Seeks Protection for Minor Jantar Mantar Protester
UP Police Suspends SI Over Notice to Student Protester
