Hathras gangrape: Let Allahabad HC deal with case, says SC on PILs demanding trial outside UP
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the intervenors, demanded an 'intensive monitoring' of the case by a Constitutional court, and that a special public prosecutor should be appointed by the apex court in the case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said the Allahabad High Court be allowed to monitor the Hathras rape case.
The top court, which was hearing a PIL and several intervention pleas of activists and lawyers, was told that a fair trial wasn't possible in Uttar Pradesh, as the investigation has been "botched up".
Allaying the apprehension, a bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde, said, "Let the high court deal with it. We are here if there is any problem."
Besides Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the hearing saw a battery of senior advocates like Harish Salve, Indira Jaising and Siddharth Luthra appearing for various parties.
There were other lawyers who wanted to argue but the apex court said, "We don't need assistance of the whole world".
The hearing also witnessed deliberations that in no case the victim's identity be disclosed and her family members and witnesses be given full security and protection.
The lawyer appearing for the victim's family demanded that the proceedings of the case be shifted out of Uttar Pradesh to a court in the National Capital.
The apprehension of not having the fair trial in the state was also raised by activist-lawyer Indira Jaising who also made submissions on witness protection.
At the outset, the Solicitor General referred to recent affidavit filed by the Uttar Pradesh government, which gave details about the security and protection provided to the victim's family and witnesses in the case.
The state government, which has already transferred the case to the CBI and has given consent to monitoring by the apex court, had filed the affidavit after the top court sought details on witness protection and on whether the victim's family has chosen a lawyer.
Referring to the compliance affidavit, Mehta said victim's family has informed that they have engaged lawyer and they have also requested that government advocate should also pursue the case on their behalf.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for DGP of Uttar Pradesh, said that a request has been made before the bench that CRPF should be deployed for security of witnesses.
"Whoever your lordships feel, can give protection," Salve said, adding that it should not be construed to be any reflection on the state police.
Meanwhile, Mehta added, "The State is completely non-partisan".
During the hearing before the bench, also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, advocate Seema Kushwaha, appearing for the victim's family, said they want that after investigation, the trial be held in a court in Delhi. She said that CBI should be asked to submit the status report of investigation directly in the apex court.
Mehta said factual position is that the state government had already said it has no objection and anybody can conduct the probe and CBI has taken over the investigation on 10 October. The law officer said that victim's identity should not be revealed in any manner as it is not permissible under the law.
"No one can write anything which can either name the victim or something which can lead to disclosure of her identify," Mehta said.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the intervenor, said accused should not be heard at this stage. She said, "We don't expect fair trial in state of Uttar Pradesh. The investigation has been botched up".
"We want intensive monitoring of the case by a Constitutional court," Jaising said, adding that a special public prosecutor should be appointed by the apex court in the case.
"We are not satisfied with the protection given to the victim's family and witnesses by Uttar Pradesh. Let protection be given by CRPF as was done in Unnao case," she said, adding, "It is the very government against whom the victim's family have grievances".
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for one the accused, said that details of the case are all over in the media. "You go to the jurisdictional high court," the bench told Luthra.
The solicitor general opposed one of the application filed by an organisation which has sought to transfer the investigation in the Hathras incident to the CBI.
"The Supreme Court should direct that nobody should collect money in the name of victim. We have seen this in the past. I oppose this IA," Mehta said. One of the intervenors argued that probe into the case should be conducted by a court-monitored special investigating team.
A 19-year-old Dalit woman was raped allegedly by four upper-caste men in Hathras on 14 September. She died on 29 September at Delhi's Safdarjung Hospital during treatment.
The victim was cremated in the dead of the night near her home on 30 September. Her family alleged they were forced by the local police to hurriedly conduct her last rites. Local police officers, however, said the cremation was carried out "as per the wishes of the family".
The order by US District Judge Robert Pitman is the first legal blow to the Texas law known as Senate Bill 8, which until now had withstood a wave of early challenges
The apex court asked the state whether the accused in other cases lodged under IPC Section 302 (murder) are treated the same way, emphasising that the charge levied in this case are 'very serious'
Tamil Nadu's Sivakasi adds green power in fight for survival, but road for cracker industry remains bumpy
India’s firecracker hub faces a slow but painful death due to the blanket ban on the sale of firecrackers in several states for the past couple of years