Supreme Court rejects request for panel to look into police ‘excesses’

Turning down the request to constitute a committee to look into incidents that have occurred in various states, the bench said it will not be possible to have just one committee to go into facts in different states, as that will entail collection of evidence from various states.

The court asked the petitioners to approach respective High Courts within whose jurisdiction the incidents allegedly occurred. After hearing the petitioners and the respective states, the court said, “We are confident that the Chief Justices (of different HCs) will cause appropriate inquiries to be made, including by former judges of this court or High Court.”

Appearing for one of the petitioners, senior advocate Indira Jaising urged the court to order the police not to arrest any student until the petitions are filed in respective High Courts.

But the bench refused to grant the request and said, “Needless to say, the High Courts will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders with regard to arrest.” It also said the High Courts could look into “all other aspects of the matter”.

At the outset, the counsel of one petitioner said the protests had started from the north-eastern states and then spread to universities. He claimed that security personnel had laid “siege” to universities, which was not permissible under law.

Intervening, the CJI asked, “Are you turning us into a trial court? Why don’t you go to High Courts? The protests have occurred in different places, and each has different consequences…. We cannot go into all facts…we are not belittling the problem.”

The counsel said the protests may escalate if the apex court does not intervene, to which CJI Bobde remarked, “It’s a law and order problem.”

The CJI also said, “We are not justifying the government stand or at the moment deciding the Bill…we are not an institution that can ensure law and order. We are not saying it’s serious…but go to High Court.”

Jaising said, “FIRs have been filed against students across the country, (and) if you want peace you can’t have FIRs against students and throw them in prison.”

The CJI said, “I am not pre-judging, but if the police see someone indulging in violence they should not file FIR?”

Jaising replied that she was only saying there should be no arrests of students. CJI Bobde observed, “We are not allowing anyone to commit any offence.”

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, also appearing for a petitioner, raised the issue of alleged violence in AMU and urged the court to send a retired judge to look into the situation.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre, denied the charges that any student had been arrested and said “no student has been arrested till now”.

He said there was a written request from the proctor of AMU seeking police presence in the light of rumours of two deaths in Jamia.

On reports that a protestor had suffered bullet injuries in his palm, Mehta said it may have occurred due to explosion of tear gas shell, when the person may have caught it and thrown it back at the police.