Sambhal Violence | Aggrieved Person Can Approach Enquiry Commission: Allahabad High Court On PIL Against 'Police Atrocities'

A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal that any person conversant with relevant facts can submit his evidence before the Enquiry Commission.

“…instead of approaching this Court on the basis of half baked facts, aggrieved person can give their evidence or statement to the Enquiry Commission,” the bench observed hearing the PIL plea filed by Association of Protection of Civil Rights (APCR).

The court referred to Section 5 of the Commission of the Inquiry Act, 1952, which provides that the Commission so constituted shall have the power to examine any person conversant with the relevant facts and can also seize relevant documents under Section 5(3).

The Court also took note of a recent order of the co-ordinate bench wherein the bench had consigned to record another plea related to the Sambhal violence by allowing its withdrawal. The PIL plea filed by Varanasi-based Dr Anand Prakash Tiwari had sought a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe under the chairmanship of a retired HC judge into the alleged involvement of the Uttar Pradesh government, its administrative officials, including the District Magistrate (DM) and Superintendent of Police (SP), in the violence that erupted in Sambhal.

“We have carefully examined the record and perused the relief, as has been prayed for in the instant matter. We do not find it to be a fit case to entertain at this stage as the co-ordinate Bench has already accorded the leave to the petitioner to institute the proceeding in case such situation warrants. Once, the co-ordinate Bench has taken a note of the Enquiry Commission which is already constituted and has declined to entertain the matter granting leave to press the relief at the appropriate stage, this Court finds no reason to entertain the matter at this stage which is already seized with the Enquiry Commission,” the division bench remarked.

Thus, rejecting the submission of counsel for the petitioner for non-recording of relevant statements and destruction of evidence by police as absolutely misconceived, the Court consigned to record the PIL plea filed by the APCR.

The court, however, clarified that If the petitioner or any other person is still aggrieved after the conclusion of the enquiry, he may again approach this Court.

It may be noted that the UP government constituted a three-member judicial commission comprising retired Allahabad High Court judge Devendra Kumar Arora, retired IAS officer Amit Mohan Prasad, and retired IPS officer Arvind Kumar Jain last month. Violence erupted in Sambhal district on November 24 after a team led by an advocate commissioner surveyed the Mughal-era Jama Mosque on the orders of a local court.

The violence, where protesters opposing the survey of the Jama Masjid clashed with security personnel, resulted in the deaths of four persons. As per the media reports, the protesters torched vehicles and pelted the police with stones while the security personnel used tear gas and batons to disperse the mob.

The PIL plea asserted that both the police and the state failed to prevent the violence, and there are allegations of complicity through their participation and the adoption of illegal and inadequate measures during the incident.

The PIL alleged that the police are engaging in arbitrary mass arrests, detentions, and excessive use of force, including indiscriminate firing, which has forced individuals, mainly from one community, to flee the area in fear of illegal prosecution.

The petition further claimed that the police are conducting arrests and detentions arbitrarily and illegally, which appears to be the work of a criminal and not that of police who build for safety and maintain peace and harmony, law and order.

The petitioner further asserted that the respondents' actions are illegal and discriminatory and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court's guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.

APCR was represented by Senior Advocate SFA Naqvi, assisted by Advocate Pawan Kumar Yadav, counsel for the petitioner and AAG Manish Goyal and A.K. Sand for the State.