The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed reluctance to reconstitute the High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) constituted to inquire into the violence surrounding the student protests, responding to submissions that the presence of a former Director General of Police (DGP) on the panel raised apprehensions of bias.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said that the Court would not proceed on a presumption that a committee constituted by the Supreme Court was biased. The bench, however, said it would examine the specific reservations raised regarding the former DGP's membership.

It was by the order dated August 18 that the Supreme Court constituted a 5-member Committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy to independently examine allegations of violence during the student demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and other locations across the country in July.

Its other members are former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Delhi High Court judge Justice Shalinder Kaur, former CBI Director Rishi Kumar Shukla and retired Meghalaya Director General of Police Dr. L.R. Bishnoi.

After that, some of the petitioners in the student protest matter filed an application seeking reconstitution of the committee, expressing reservations. They also sought that the committee be headed by a former CJI and include a woman member.

During today's hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that one of the members of the HPEC (a former DGP of a north-eastern State) was under a "conflict of interest" as he is a close friend of a high functionary who was likely to be under investigation. Bhushan further submitted that the integrity of the individual was under doubt. "He was a batchmate and a very close friend of one of the persons who will be under inquiry. There have also been questions raised about his integrity," he said. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan backed Bhushan's submission. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that except the ex-DGP, there was no apprehension of bias with respect to other members.

The Chief Justice said that the said person was selected, as he was a DGP of a north-eastern State, and hence unlikely to be proximate to political parties in the mainland. The CJI said that the committee will be working under a former Supreme Court Judge, and the former DGP, as the juniormost member, has only a limited role.

"We will not agree to any changes. The Committee will be working under the supervision of the Supreme Court. We will not re-constitute. Let this committee function, we will see. We are not running away. If anyone feels the Committee has gone wrong somewhere, you tell us. We will give open hearing," the CJI said.

Justice Bagchi added that one cannot start with a presumption of bias against a committee constituted by the Court, though he assured to examine the reservations.

"With respect to one member of the committee, you have certain grievance. We will look into your reservations concerning that member. But to say that a member of a Committee presided over by a former judge of this Court and selected by us should start with a presumption of bias is something we cannot accept," Justice Bagchi said.

Sankaranarayanan said that the issue was more about the committee "inspiring confidence" than "presumption of bias". "Your order says that the chain of command has to be examined. If that chain of command goes all the way up to the Home Ministry, Your Lordships may consider whether the junior-most officer on the Committee will be able to act independently. That is all we are saying," he said.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta vehemently opposed the submissions against the Committee, and said that the attempt was to make the issue political. He urged the bench to ignore those submissions. Sankaranarayanan retorted by saying, "accused cannot have a say in the committee." The SG reacted sharply, saying, "I cannot stoop that low, dignified silence will be my response."

The Solicitor also informed the Court that the High-Powered Enquiry Committee has been provided with all logistical support, and that it is going to hold its first meeting on September 15.

The bench clarified that the HPEC will be at liberty to appoint its own counsel as an amicus to represent it before the Supreme Court.

The Court also stated that it will issue an order clarifying the procedure to be followed by the Committee.

Other issues raised

Advocate Vrinda Grover raised the issue of pellet gun use in protests, and the need for interim compensation for victims. She pointed out that the Union is yet to file a counter-affidavit in the matter. Although the Solicitor assured on the last hearing that he would look into the issue, no officer has yet reached out to the victims, Grover added.

When the SG said that the issue can be raised before the Committee, Grover said that it was a constitutional question, which only the Supreme Court can decide.

Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy referred to the petition filed against the use of facial recognition technology at the protest sites, and pointed out that the Union was yet to file its response.

Also from the hearing -

Attack On Child CJP Protester : Supreme Court Takes Serious View; Seeks Report On FIR, Directs Security

Executive Magistrate Who Issued Notice To Student Over CJP Protest Suspended : Solicitor Tells Supreme Court