SC refuses to set up panel to inquire into violent incidents during students protest

The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to set up a committee of a retired apex court judge to inquire into the allegations of police atrocities against students and incidents of violence during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Aligarh and Jamia universities here, and asked the petitioners to approach respective high courts with their grievances.

The apex court said the high courts, after looking into all the aspects and hearing both sides, may appoint fact finding committees to inquire into the allegations and they would also pass orders with regard to arrest and medical treatment to those injured in the protests.

"Having regard to the nature of disputes and the vast area through which these incidents are said to have occurred, we find that it would not be feasible to appoint a single committee to go into the matters in various states," said a bench comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant.

The bench noted in its order that each fact alleged by the petitioners has been disputed by the Centre, which through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that not a single student has been arrested so far in these incidents at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Jamia Millia Islamia here.

The bench said that two main concerns raised by the petitioners have been that students were "indiscriminately arrested" and they were injured and not getting proper medical treatment.

Mehta, however, said that only two students from AMU have been hospitalised and they are being treated at the university hospital itself.

His arguments that police had not caused any injury to the students was contested by the petitioners who alleged that several students were undergoing treatment for broken limbs.

Taking note of the allegations and counter-allegations, the bench said, "We are confident that the Chief Justices (of various high courts) will call upon for inquiry, if needed, and appoint appropriate committee including a former judge of the apex court or high court after hearing the union of India and respective states."
It added: "High court will be at liberty to pass appropriate order with regard to arrest and medical treatment, if brought to its notice, after verification."
Regarding protest at AMU, Mehta said, "Proctor of AMU, who is a former IAS officer, gave us (police) in writing that because of rumours, some people, may be outsiders, may create law and order problem so send the police force."
At the outset, the bench asked the petitioners, "Why should we entertain these petitions? Why not go to the high court?"
When the petitioners said that students were holding peaceful protests, the bench asked, "Then how the buses were burnt?"
While the arguments were being made, the bench said: "We have disclosed our mind (that incidents of each states will go to the respective high court)."
While refusing to appoint a committee of a retired judge of the apex court as was done in the Telengana encounter case, the bench said, "No parallel can be drawn between them."
"In Telangana, one committee could have gone into the incident but in the incidents of violence at several places, it is not possible as the issue of jurisdiction will arise."