Pellet guns, cop injuries, excessive violence: SC sets CJP probe panel's priorities

The Supreme Court has told its enquiry panel to first examine violence linked to the July CJP protests. It has also ordered witness protection measures while keeping broader constitutional questions for later.

In Short

• Supreme Court sets specific issues for panel to probe violence during CJP protests
• Court rejects plea to reconstitute enquiry panel citing fairness and transparency
• SC orders protection and confidentiality for vulnerable witnesses, appoints Amici Curiae

The Supreme Court has set out a specific list of issues for its High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) to examine as it begins its probe into violence during the July protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), including the use of pellet guns, targeted violence and harassment of female protesters, injuries to police personnel, excessive violence and destruction of property on both sides.

In an order uploaded on Wednesday following the September 10 hearing, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the committee should, in the first instance, focus on these issues.

The court also made it clear that broader constitutional questions arising from the protests, including those concerning facial recognition, would be considered by the Supreme Court itself “at the appropriate stage”.

The HPEC was constituted by the Supreme Court in August to independently examine allegations of excessive force against protesters as well as allegations of violence against security personnel during the protests. Its terms of reference include allegations involving pellet guns, electric batons, lathi charges and tear gas, along with alleged violence and harassment of female protesters.

SC REFUSES TO RECONSTITUTE PANEL

The latest order came after some petitioners sought reconstitution of the HPEC, raising concerns about its composition.

Rejecting the plea, the court said it was “constrained to observe, with some measure of disquiet” that “aspersions have been cast upon the HPEC in a manner that is both premature and precipitate”.

The bench said the demand for reconstitution was based on “conjecture and preconceived notions” even before the committee had begun its inquiry.

“It must be understood by one and all that the HPEC has been constituted to assist this Court with the highest standards of fairness and transparency and with a dispassionate approach,” the court said, adding that the panel was “not created to espouse the causes of one or the other party”.

The court has asked the HPEC to submit its first report at the earliest. The committee is functioning under the Supreme Court's supervision and has been tasked with examining allegations from both sides.

PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE WITNESSES

The court also issued detailed directions on how witnesses, particularly vulnerable ones, should be dealt with during the inquiry.

Taking note of concerns about the treatment of people who may approach the HPEC with their accounts and grievances, the bench directed that such witnesses be provided “due protection” and that their identities be kept “confidential and undisclosed”.

The court further said “utmost confidentiality” should be maintained for statements and evidence submitted by vulnerable witnesses. It suggested that the HPEC could create a separate online portal through which witnesses and other stakeholders could submit documents and evidence.

The directions come amid allegations of threats and harassment involving protesters, including a 14-year-old girl who, according to submissions before the court, had allegedly received threats against herself and her family.

The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Police to assess the threat perception and provide protection to the girl and her family. It also ordered the police to investigate the alleged threats and submit a status report before the next hearing.

Furthermore, SC also appointed senior advocate Dr Monika Gusain and C Solomon, AOR, as Amici Curiae in the matter. They will assist the court, represent the HPEC and act as independent arbiters between the parties.

The court has also directed the HPEC to appoint a Member Secretary at the earliest to handle the committee’s administrative and secretarial requirements. It further asked the HPEC to submit its first report at the earliest.

- Ends