The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the five-member high-powered enquiry committee (HPEC), headed by its former judge Justice R Subhash Reddy, should be allowed to conduct its independent inquiry into allegations of excessive use of force during the July 20 protest in Delhi, even as petitioners sought its reconstitution and a wider probe into the alleged role of Union home minister Amit Shah and some other senior government and police functionaries.
“Whosoever will work, they will work under the direct supervision of this court. It alleges that publicly available information about the non-judicial members does not show specialised experience in investigating excessive use of police force or examining senior executive and police officials. The Union government and Delhi government had stated that they had no objection to an independent and fair probe, while denying that the police had committed excesses. Other members of the committee include Justice (retired) Ravi Shankar Jha, former chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana high court; justice (retired) Shalinder Kaur, former Delhi high court judge; Rishi Kumar Shukla, former Central Bureau of Investigation director; and LR Bishnoi, retired director general of police, Meghalaya.
The application questions the absence of these categories of members from the committee constituted by the Supreme Court on August 18. The Supreme Court had on July 28 recorded that the allegations prima facie warranted an independent and impartial investigation into the incidents of violence. The HPEC, headed by Justice (retired) Reddy, was constituted by the Supreme Court to conduct an independent and impartial inquiry into competing allegations arising from the July 20 student protest — petitions alleging excessive force by police as well as pleas concerning violence against police personnel and legality of the protest.
We have not disposed of the matter and will monitor everything,” said the CJI. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police, opposed the application, describing it as “mischievous” and objecting to the petitioners’ demand for reconstitution of the committee. When Sankaranarayanan said the petitioners were only seeking listing of the application, Mehta pointed out that it also named judges whom the petitioners wanted on the panel, apart from seeking probe against certain ministers. It also raises a “structural concern” about the committee’s independence, while clarifying that the objection is not directed at the personal integrity of any member.
The court also urged the petitioners to allow the committee to begin its work and raise any concerns before the court as the inquiry progresses.
