'Whataboutery By State Unbecoming': Prashant Bhushan Reacts To Tripura Govt's Stand On Plea For Probe Into Riots
story
The Supreme Court on Monday posted for January 31 a writ petition seeking an independent investigation into the recent communal violence in Tripura. The Court adjourned the hearing at the petitioner's request for time to respond to the state's stand that the petitioner, claiming to be a "public-spirited" citizen, has chosen some incident in Tripura but kept silent when severe pre-poll...
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.
The Supreme Court on Monday posted for January 31 a writ petition seeking an independent investigation into the recent communal violence in Tripura. The Court adjourned the hearing at the petitioner's request for time to respond to the state's stand that the petitioner, claiming to be a "public-spirited" citizen, has chosen some incident in Tripura but kept silent when severe pre-poll and post-poll violence took place in West Bengal.
"The state, in its counter-affidavit, has asked why did we not do anything about the West Bengal polls. For the state government to do such whataboutery in such serious matters as communal violence is totally unbecoming of a state. I understand C-grade media channels doing it, but this does not show the state in a very good light…I will file my rejoinder", Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, told the bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari.Mr. Bhushan sought time to file a rejoinder, and acceding to the same, the bench adjourned the matter to next Monday.
When the matter was called out last on January 10, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Tripura, had prayed for 1 week's time to be able to file the response on behalf of the state.
Mr. Bhushan, for the petitioner-advocate Ehtesham Hashmi, had told the bench that notice was issued on November 29, 2021, and further time for filing of reply was taken on December 13, 2021, but till today, no reply has been forthcoming from the state of Tripura in this matter of "serious communal violence".
At this, the SG had told the bench, "I will file an affidavit-in-reply in 1 week and will raise certain issues which my learned friend would have to deal with. There are very serious issues"
"I find this practice very strange that notice was received more than a month ago, they asked for further time a month ago, 4 weeks were given, the matter listed was today, and today again they tell the Court that we will need 1 more week for reply? This is encouraging similar acts...", Mr. Bhushan had said.
The SG had responded, "My learned friend can find many things strange, but what about this selective public interest? I will place this on affidavit! They are lawyers. For one state, they suddenly jump, but there is nothing for other states! Now they have their own team, they go and prepare self-styled documents, they call it a report and then they file a PIL for one state! And I am not going beyond anything in saying this, I will put all this in the affidavit! "
Justice Chandrachud had, on that occasion, remarked that in the instant matter, "it is important for the court to have the response of the state to do justice". The bench then granted 1 more week's time to the state of Tripura to place on record any further pleadings.According to the state of Tripura's counter-affidavit, the so-called "public spirit" of the petitioners did not move few months back on large scale violence in West Bengal and suddenly their "public spirit" aroused due to some instances in a small State like Tripura.
Arguing that this is clearly a case of selective outrage under the pretence of public interest and to achieve some undisclosed agenda, the State of Tripura has sought dismissal of the petition with exemplary cost.
The petition has been filed by Advocate Ehtesham Hashmi through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, seeking an independent and impartial investigation into the riots.
The State of Tripura has argued that a genuine and bona fide public-spirited citizen would not be selective in his public interest and would not be choosy about rushing before the Supreme Court with regard to one State and keeping quiet with regard to the other.
The State has pointed out that the High Court of Tripura is cognizant of some instances which have taken place and has already taken suo moto cognizance and the matter is pending. Therefore, the State has argued that the present matter, if at all to be entertained should be remanded back to the High CourtCase Title: Ehtesham Hashmi v. Union of India & Ors.
Click Here To Read/Download Order