Bihar Hooch Tragedy : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Petition Seeking SIT Probe

Update: 2023-01-09 14:28 GMT
story

Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha refused to entertain a PIL seeking the formation of a Special Investigation Team to probe into the Hooch tragedy in Bihar. The petitioner Aryavarta Mahasabha Foundation, an NGO, had also sought for a national plan to curb the manufacturing and sale of illicit liquor and a direction of payment of compensation...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha refused to entertain a PIL seeking the formation of a Special Investigation Team to probe into the Hooch tragedy in Bihar. The petitioner Aryavarta Mahasabha Foundation, an NGO, had also sought for a national plan to curb the manufacturing and sale of illicit liquor and a direction of payment of compensation to the families of victims. 

At the outset, the counsel for petitioner, Advocate Dhawal Uniyal submitted–

"This is pertaining to the Hooch tragedy. One of the first incidents happened in Bihar. This keeps on happening. We have Uttarakhand, we have Uttar Pradesh. I have personally visited the incidents, I have collected all Aadhaar cards. More than 200 deaths have taken place. I have recorded it. The issue is wide. Punjab, UP, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan – all are facing this issue. This needs to be settled out once and for all."

However, the bench was not convinced and stated that all these reliefs could be dealt with by the High Court. The petitioner stated that the bench of Justice MR Shah of the Apex court was already dealing with matters pertaining to the Hooch tragedy. The bench remained unconvinced. CJI DY Chandrachud stated– 

"Let the High courts deal with it because there are reasons why we must allow High Court's untravelled exercise of jurisdiction because they're aware of circumstances in the state. The High Court has all the powers. In fact they have even wider powers than us. It is a broader jurisdiction...The nature of the relief sought in the PIL are such which can be adequately addressed by the High Court by its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners are provided with liberty to move to the High Court."

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 

Case Title: Aryavarta Mahasabha Foundation v. UoI And Anr. WP(Crl) No. 5/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Tags:    

Similar News