Student Protest Violence : Supreme Court Allows Enquiry Panel To Examine Materials Submitted By Petitioners On Behalf Of Victims

The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted the High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC), constituted to investigate the violence during the July student protests, to examine materials submitted by petitioners before the Court on behalf of victims, including video clips, noting that very few victims have approached the Committee with complaints.

The Committee, headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice R Subhash Reddy, informed the Court that despite activating a portal and providing a dedicated email address for filing complaints, it had received very few complaints, either physically or digitally.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was apprised of the Committee's action-taken report today.

Reading out the gist of the report, CJI Surya Kant said that the Committee had held a sitting at its office on October 29, with publicity being given through print and electronic media. Notices were also sent to protesters who had filed complaints. However, only one complainant appeared before the Committee on October 29 and submitted an affidavit. Some police personnel had also appeared before it.

"Despite the efforts made, only a few complaints were received on the portal, and none by email, post or physical delivery. Our first concern is that complainants should submit their complaints. A portal has been created. A dedicated email address has also been provided. The committee can then examine those complaints," the CJI said.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for some petitioners, disputed the Committee's position, stating that the petitioners had submitted a representation even before the portal was opened. After the portal became operational, another representation was submitted in accordance with the prescribed procedure, she added.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the materials already placed before the Supreme Court by the petitioners, which allegedly show instances of police violence, could be forwarded to the Committee for examination instead of requiring each victim to approach it individually.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, submitted that the PIL petitioners might not have personal knowledge of the incidents.

Grover further submitted that not even a single FIR had been registered in relation to the alleged instances of violence. Sankaranarayanan added that although the Supreme Court's earlier order clarified that the constitution of the Committee would not prevent departmental action against officers found to have committed misconduct, no such action had been taken.

Justice Bagchi then clarified,"What we said was that constitution of the committee should not be understood as preventing police authorities or their superiors from taking action if they find that someone deployed at the site committed a transgression."

The CJI urged the petitioners to encourage the victims to approach the Committee and submit their accounts of the incidents.

"Our request to all of you is to motivate the complainants to come forward. There appears to be a gap between the material which petitioners say they have submitted and what has actually reached the committee," the CJI said.

Sankaranarayanan maintained that the petitioners had already submitted representations to the Committee. The CJI responded that although the petitioners were entitled to act on behalf of the victims, the victims themselves had not appeared before the Committee.

"But the victims themselves have not appeared before the committee. You are acting on their behalf, which is permissible. In that situation, you should request the committee to summon the victims concerned," the CJI said.

The Court also noted that, according to the HPEC report, complaints could be submitted anonymously without disclosing phone numbers or other personal details. Separate tabs had also been provided for complaints by protesters and police personnel.

In view of the limited number of complaints received, the Court permitted the petitioners to forward all relevant materials in their possession to the Committee, including the petitions and affidavits filed before the Supreme Court.

"We have impressed upon the learned counsel for the parties, since there is no requirement of disclosure of names of complainants/victims, let the entire materials within their possession be forwarded to the given address of HPEC or the portal, to enable it to consider such material. The petitions/affidavits filed before the Court be forwarded to the Committee," the Court stated in the order.

"We clarify that materials/information forwarded by the parties on behalf of victims will also be examined and considered by the Committee," the Court clarified.

Addressing Advocate Monika Gusain, the amicus representing the Committee, the CJI said that the HPEC should not wait indefinitely for complaints and should proceed with its fact-finding exercise based on the materials already received.

"Whatever material has come, the committee need not wait indefinitely. Based on that, we would like the committee gives a fact-finding report," the CJI said.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan submitted that the Committee's report should be shared with the parties; otherwise, they will not be able to assist the Court. 

Grover said that the Committee's report showed that the Centre has not produced materials on who authorised the firing of pellet guns on the protesters.

In the order, the Court also recorded the acceptance of the resignation of retired Meghalaya Director General of Police Dr. L.R. Bishnoi from the Committee.