Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A Monitoring Committee under the headship of Justice Bedi was constituted to investigate the matters of fake encounter in the state of Gujarat between 2002 and 2006. The Supreme Court necessitated the former Justice H.S.Bedi to shed light on whether the final report on the investigation made in that regard was prepared in consultation with the other members of the said Monitoring Committee. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on behalf of the state government of Gujarat, objected that the final report was prepared not in consultation with the other members of the monitoring committee instead it is a sole-endeavour by the former Justice H.S.Bedi. In addition to this, he emphasised that the court should consider whether a copy of the report should be provided to any of the petitioners or their counsel.
The Hon’ble bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, and Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph found it necessary to seek the opinion of the chairman of the Monitoring Committee – Justice H.S. Bedi. Chief Justice Gogoi made an observation stating that whether the report is prepared by the Chairman independently or in consultation with the other members of the committee is a debatable issue. Also, the chairman had stated that he shared the report with the other members; therefore, relying on these words of the former Justice H.S. Bedi, there is nothing further to peruse as an issue.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that even interim reports were prepared by the Chairman and the orders of the apex court justify the same. He brought to the notice of this honourable bench the earlier order dated 02 March 2012 placing the committee under the chairmanship of Justice H.S.Bedi, and requiring the fullest co-operation of the Gujarat State Government. In addition to this, the same learned advocate threw light on another order dated July 26, 2013 wherein it was recorded that “Hon’ble Mr Justice H. S. Bedi (Former judge), Chairman, Monitoring Committee has so far submitted five status reports in this court” directing the Registry to provide copies of the same to the counsel for the parties.
To counter the submission advanced by the above-mentioned advocate, the Solicitor General relied on another order dated August 14, 2013, recording that “The Monitoring Committee appointed by this Court headed by a former judge as its Chairman” submitted by its sixth report. A perusal of the reports by the other members of the monitoring committee is imperative and if not done, it would hit the intent behind the constitution of a monitoring authority. All reports were submitted after conducting discussions, and one of the reports mentions about the minutes of meetings convened among the committee members.
The Chief Justice questioned the learned counsel appearing for the Gujarat government on the reason behind his claim that the report was not prepared by the Monitoring Committee. Mr Mehta replied stating that the committee had its own procedures to submit the reports, and such reports are prepared in consultation with the other members of the committee and submitted under the signature of the chairman. Subsequently, the report was to be submitted to the court in ten copies in sealed covers thereby allowing the apex court to furnish the same to the parties and their counsel. On enquiry, the learned lawyer learnt that the other members were unaware of this report. He added that the committee was first constituted by the state government complying with the order of this court, and subsequently by the apex court.
On account of lack of trust, a Special Task Force (STF) was constituted to investigate matters relating to encounter deaths. The Monitoring Committee was constituted comprising DGP, the Director, Forensic Science Department, FSL, Gujarat Government, a member of the Human Rights Commission, the District Judge for the district wherein the encounter death has occurred. This Committee acted as an aid, instructor and supervisor to the STF, and received complaints and information regarding the encounter deaths from the latter if any.
The SG contended strongly about the locus standi of the petitioners stating that one is a journalist from Delhi and another is a lyricist based in Bombay, and this is a rampant abuse of the Court’s jurisdiction. The chief justice denied.
86540
103860
630
114
59824