Probe complaints received, no waiting indefinitely for more complainants: Supreme Court tells its committee

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the High Powered Expert Committee (HPEC) it had set up to probe alleged police excesses during the July protests against the NEET paper leak to proceed with its fact-finding exercise on the basis of complaints and other material received so far and submit its first report without waiting indefinitely for more complainants to come forward.

A three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued the direction after perusing HPEC’s Action Taken Report, which flagged that it had received very few complaints from those affected despite setting up a dedicated portal and email address.

The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said that material submitted by petitioners on behalf of victims, including petitions and affidavits already placed before the court, must also be examined by the committee. “The committee need not wait indefinitely. On the basis of material already received, it should call for responses from whoever is required to respond and submit its first report,” the bench said.

At the outset, senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for some petitioners, said it had been more than two months since the HPEC was set up but “we really don’t know what is the progress”.

Saying that the principal issue was the alleged police brutality during the protests, he added, “…there is no departmental enquiry, there is no registration of any case… Now that’s the issue which must be prima facie considered by this court… There are physical assault on women also.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, said the grievances of police personnel should also be examined as several of them had been injured during the protests.

The CJI then pointed out that, according to HPEC’s report, “despite… efforts, very few complaints had been received on its portal and none by email…”

Story continues below this ad

“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,” he said, adding that only one complainant had so far submitted an affidavit.

Justice Bagchi, too, said, “Committee has flagged that neither online, not physically, hardly any person has come alleging violation of their rights or physical assault or violence…”

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, however, disputed this, saying the petitioners had submitted representations both before and after the portal was opened.

To this, Justice Bagchi said, “We will set out the gist of the report (in the order) so that you can either controvert or take remedial action… If it’s factually incorrect as Sankaranarayanan pointed out, please place on record documents rendering it incorrect on facts…”

Story continues below this ad

To a submission by some petitioners that materials already placed before the SC – which allegedly show instances of police violence – be forwarded to the committee instead of each victim approaching it individually, the SG said, “The committee must also take into account that these are all third person accounts who have no personal knowledge. These are all published spirited (petitioners)”.

Sankaranarayanan said the committee appeared to be considering only victim accounts and not material submitted by petitioners. “It will help if your lordships say that whatever submissions are made by the petitioners here and which have been placed before the committee in terms of those priority directions, that be considered,” he urged the bench.

He also referred to the August 18 order, which clarified that the constitution of the HPEC would not prevent police authorities from taking administrative or disciplinary action against officers found to have violated conduct rules. He sought an affidavit from the authorities on what action, if any, had been taken.

Justice Bagchi, however, said, “We have only clarified that your (police) powers to discipline your employees are not cluttered by our direction on HPEC. If they decide independent of what the committee does, it’s open to them.”

Story continues below this ad

Advocate Vrinda Grover pointed out that not even one FIR had been registered in relation to the alleged instances of violence.

The CJI urged petitioners to encourage those affected to approach the committee. “…There appears to be a gap between the material which petitioners say they have submitted and what has actually reached the committee,” he said.

In its order, the court said that since complainants and victims were not required to disclose their identities, parties should forward all material in their possession to the committee or upload it on its portal. “The petitions/affidavits filed before the court be forwarded to the committee”.

“We clarify that materials/information forwarded by the parties on behalf of victims will also be examined and considered by the committee,” it added.