‘Fake’ encounters: Gujarat raises doubts in SC over locus & motive of petitioners

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Gujarat authorities on Monday voiced reservation inside the Supreme Court over sharing supplies with petitioners in a matter related to alleged faux encounter situations from 2002 to 2006, for whose monitoring a committee beneath former apex court docket docket determine Justice H S Bedi was prepare, and talked about there have been “serious doubts” about their locus and motive.

The apex court docket docket was listening to 2 separate pleas filed in 2007 by senior journalist BG Verghese, and well-known lyricist Javed Akhtar and Shabnam Hashmi, looking for a probe into the alleged faux encounters. Verghese died in 2014.

Justice Bedi, upon submitting of these petitions, was appointed as a result of the chairman of the monitoring committee probing 17 alleged faux encounter situations in Gujarat from 2002 to 2006, and had submitted a report again to the very best court docket docket in a sealed cowl.

The committee, which submitted its report in 2019, actually useful prosecution of law enforcement officials in three out of the 17 situations it probed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, exhibiting for the state, knowledgeable a bench of Justices S Okay Kaul and A Amanullah on Monday that the petitioners weren’t concerned about encounters that occurred in several states, along with the place they lived, and have been centered solely on Gujarat.

“There are serious doubts about the locus and motive of the petitioners. Whether these documents be shared with strangers?” he talked about.

While dealing with the matter on January 18, the very best court docket docket had recorded in its order that on listening to the advocates for the occasions, it emerged that lastly the issue now revolves spherical three encounters.

“To the extent of the report of Justice H S Bedi, retired judge of this court deals with the material in respect of the same, it is agreed that inspection can be taken by the parties but the state government will extract the record relating to these three encounters, make copies and circulate it to all the parties before us. Separate paper books will also be prepared to assist this court qua that material encounter-wise,” the bench had well-known in its January 18 order.

At the outset of the listening to on Monday, when the bench referred to its earlier order, advocate Prashant Bhushan, exhibiting for one among many petitioners, talked about the state has not accomplished one thing.

Mehta talked about the investigation or inquiry was held beneath the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and no supplies should be shared with the petitioners.

“People staying somewhere in other states have identified particular period of encounters. There were encounters in other states (as well) but they (petitioners) are not concerned,” he talked about.

When the bench requested what is the state’s stand on the report, Mehta talked about, “We have to say something on the report”.

The bench, whereas referring to its earlier order, talked about it wished segregation of provides to occur.

“The segregation has taken place,” the solicitor frequent talked about, together with, “Please hear us on the question of whether it has to be shared with strangers”.

Mehta talked about there could also be “selective public interest” and one among many petitioners stays in Maharashtra, apparently referring to Akhtar, the place encounters had taken place nonetheless he isn’t bothered with that.

“I am going to oppose their locus,” he talked about, together with these are “selective” public curiosity litigation (PILs).

Bhushan referred to an earlier judgement of the apex court docket docket and talked about it laid down detailed tips on how points should be accomplished in situations of fake encounters.

“In this case, the Supreme Court had appointed a former judge of this court to carry out the inquiry. The report says three encounters appear to be fake,” Bhushan argued.

Bhushan talked about in these three encounters, there is a should register FIR and hand over the investigation to some unbiased firm.

It well-known the state has submitted that encounter-wise provides have been segregated nonetheless they’ve reservation on sharing the equivalent with the petitioners.

“It appears they (state) have some reservations on sharing this. We will list it for hearing,” it talked about.

“We have to address this issue,” the bench talked about whereas posting the matter for listening to on July 12.

In its November last yr order, the apex court docket docket had well-known that the restricted contours which have now to be examined was whether or not or not any directions have been required pursuant to the report of Justice Bedi.

In its final report filed inside the apex court docket docket, the Justice Bedi committee had talked about three people — Sameer Khan, Kasam Jafar and Haji Ismail — have been prime facie killed in faux encounters by Gujarat Police officers.

It had indicted a whole of 9 law enforcement officials, along with three inspector-rank officers.

It, nonetheless, did not counsel prosecution of any IPS officer.

On January 9, 2019, a bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had rejected the Gujarat authorities’s plea to maintain up confidentiality of the last word report of the committee and ordered that or not it is given to petitioners.

The panel had moreover dealt with 14 totally different situations which related to alleged faux encounter killings of Mithu Umar Dafer, Anil Bipin Misra, Mahesh, Rajeshwar, Kashyap Harpalsingh Dhaka, Salim Gagji Miyana, Jala Popat Devipujak, Rafiksha, Bheema Maanda Mer, Jogindrasinh Khatansing, Ganesh Khunte, Mahendra Jadav, Subhash Bhaskar Nayyar and Sanjay.

NEW DELHI: The Gujarat authorities on Monday voiced reservation inside the Supreme Court over sharing supplies with petitioners in a matter related to alleged faux encounter situations from 2002 to 2006, for whose monitoring a committee beneath former apex court docket docket determine Justice H S Bedi was prepare, and talked about there have been “serious doubts” about their locus and motive.

The apex court docket docket was listening to 2 separate pleas filed in 2007 by senior journalist BG Verghese, and well-known lyricist Javed Akhtar and Shabnam Hashmi, looking for a probe into the alleged faux encounters. Verghese died in 2014.

Justice Bedi, upon submitting of these petitions, was appointed as a result of the chairman of the monitoring committee probing 17 alleged faux encounter situations in Gujarat from 2002 to 2006, and had submitted a report again to the very best court docket docket in a sealed cowl.googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.present(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

The committee, which submitted its report in 2019, actually useful prosecution of law enforcement officials in three out of the 17 situations it probed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, exhibiting for the state, knowledgeable a bench of Justices S Okay Kaul and A Amanullah on Monday that the petitioners weren’t concerned about encounters that occurred in several states, along with the place they lived, and have been centered solely on Gujarat.

“There are serious doubts about the locus and motive of the petitioners. Whether these documents be shared with strangers?” he talked about.

While dealing with the matter on January 18, the very best court docket docket had recorded in its order that on listening to the advocates for the occasions, it emerged that lastly the issue now revolves spherical three encounters.

“To the extent of the report of Justice H S Bedi, retired judge of this court deals with the material in respect of the same, it is agreed that inspection can be taken by the parties but the state government will extract the record relating to these three encounters, make copies and circulate it to all the parties before us. Separate paper books will also be prepared to assist this court qua that material encounter-wise,” the bench had well-known in its January 18 order.

At the outset of the listening to on Monday, when the bench referred to its earlier order, advocate Prashant Bhushan, exhibiting for one among many petitioners, talked about the state has not accomplished one thing.

Mehta talked about the investigation or inquiry was held beneath the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and no supplies should be shared with the petitioners.

“People staying somewhere in other states have identified particular period of encounters. There were encounters in other states (as well) but they (petitioners) are not concerned,” he talked about.

When the bench requested what is the state’s stand on the report, Mehta talked about, “We have to say something on the report”.

The bench, whereas referring to its earlier order, talked about it wished segregation of provides to occur.

“The segregation has taken place,” the solicitor frequent talked about, together with, “Please hear us on the question of whether it has to be shared with strangers”.

Mehta talked about there could also be “selective public interest” and one among many petitioners stays in Maharashtra, apparently referring to Akhtar, the place encounters had taken place nonetheless he isn’t bothered with that.

“I am going to oppose their locus,” he talked about, together with these are “selective” public curiosity litigation (PILs).

Bhushan referred to an earlier judgement of the apex court docket docket and talked about it laid down detailed tips on how points should be accomplished in situations of fake encounters.

“In this case, the Supreme Court had appointed a former judge of this court to carry out the inquiry. The report says three encounters appear to be fake,” Bhushan argued.

Bhushan talked about in these three encounters, there is a should register FIR and hand over the investigation to some unbiased firm.

It well-known the state has submitted that encounter-wise provides have been segregated nonetheless they’ve reservation on sharing the equivalent with the petitioners.

“It appears they (state) have some reservations on sharing this. We will list it for hearing,” it talked about.

“We have to address this issue,” the bench talked about whereas posting the matter for listening to on July 12.

In its November last yr order, the apex court docket docket had well-known that the restricted contours which have now to be examined was whether or not or not any directions have been required pursuant to the report of Justice Bedi.

In its final report filed inside the apex court docket docket, the Justice Bedi committee had talked about three people — Sameer Khan, Kasam Jafar and Haji Ismail — have been prime facie killed in faux encounters by Gujarat Police officers.

It had indicted a whole of 9 law enforcement officials, along with three inspector-rank officers.

It, nonetheless, did not counsel prosecution of any IPS officer.

On January 9, 2019, a bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had rejected the Gujarat authorities’s plea to maintain up confidentiality of the last word report of the committee and ordered that or not it is given to petitioners.

The panel had moreover dealt with 14 totally different situations which related to alleged faux encounter killings of Mithu Umar Dafer, Anil Bipin Misra, Mahesh, Rajeshwar, Kashyap Harpalsingh Dhaka, Salim Gagji Miyana, Jala Popat Devipujak, Rafiksha, Bheema Maanda Mer, Jogindrasinh Khatansing, Ganesh Khunte, Mahendra Jadav, Subhash Bhaskar Nayyar and Sanjay.