Roorkee Clash | 'Politics Should Be Pure; Don't Make Mockery Of System': High Court Raps State Over Security Cover To MLA, BJP Leader

In the ongoing hearing of the suo motu case concerning the violent Roorkee clash of January 26, the Uttarakhand High Court today made a series of stern oral remarks as it called into question the actions of the state government regarding the security and government accommodations provided to the two politicians involved in the Violent clash.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal rapped the state government for not handling the situation correctly; he also criticised the conduct of the two politicians involved in the violent clash [independent MLA Umesh Kumar (from Khanpur) and BJP leader and former MLA Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion].

The #UttarakhandHighCourt hears the suo motu case concerning the #RoorkeeClash incident.

A bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal makes some stern oral remarks.

"Inhe Jan-sunwayi ke liye aapne (Govt) sarkari aawas diya, inse kahte ki jaise vote mangne jaate ho ghar ghar waise hi jan… pic.twitter.com/kbzBbHdeUD

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 13, 2025

The Court orally remarked that the accused persons were misusing their power and completely disregarded the rule of law. He stressed the need for the state police to tackle such people with strong hands, take a firm stand against them, and not allow them to manipulate the system.

"Yeh log kya kanoon ko jeb mein lekar chalne ki koshish kar rahe hain? Yeh sochte hain ki sabko khareed lenge. Y category ki Security lekar chalte hain aur crime karte hain. Ye sab kab khatm kiya jayega? Kya ho raha hai yeh sab?" Justice Thapliyal said, addressing the state's counsel. [Translation: Are they trying to carry the law in their pockets? They think they can buy everyone. They walk around with Y category security and commit crimes. When will all this end? What is happening here?]

Justice Thapliyal emphasised that the Policts should be Pure. It should be such that when a politician goes go to any street, there should be happiness, not an atmosphere of fear

He added that the state law enforcement agency must conduct a thorough and fair investigation in this case to send a clear message to the country that Uttarakhand State strictly adheres to the rule of law in the state.

"Is mamle mein aisa investigation hona chahiye ki poore desh mein yeh message jaaye ki aisa kanoon ka bahut sakhti se is rajya mein paalan hota hai," he said to the state counsel.

Remarks on Government Accommodation provided to them

Justice Thapliyal questioned why the state government had provided government accommodation to the accused individuals involved in the Roorkee clash for Jan sunwayi purposes. The bench noted that the Government Accommodations of the Irrigation Department was allotted to Accused 'Champion' in 2004 and to Independent MLA Kumar in the year 2022.

"Inhe Jan-sunwayi ke liye aapne (Govt) sarkari aawas diya, inse kahte ki jaise vote mangne jaate ho ghar ghar waise hi jan sunwayi bhi karo ghar ghar jaakar," Justice Thapliyal remarked. [Translation: You (the government) have provided them government accommodation for the purposes of conducting public hearings. Tell them to conduct public hearings by going door to door, just as they do when asking for votes.]

"Ek gareeb aadmi tent ke niche, bridge ke niche sota hai aur jinke paas mahal hai, unhe aapne government accommodation de diya...Ghar khali karaiye inse, abhi 4:30 ho raha, 6 baje tak khali kara lenge?" : Justice Thapliyal further remarked. [Translation: A poor man sleeps under a tent or a bridge, while you have given government accommodation to those who live in mansions... Evict them from the house. It's 4:30 now; can we vacate the house by 6?]

Remarks on Security cover provided to both the politicians

Justice Thapliyal also raised concerns over the security being provided to both the accused as he questioned the appropriateness of giving "Y category security" to individuals with criminal backgrounds.

"Y category security de rahe hain un logon ko jinke criminal records hain...Makhaul mat udao aur country ko ghalat message mat do," he remarked, addressing the state's counsel. [Translation: They are being given Y category security despite having criminal records... Do not make mockery of the system and send the wrong message to the country.]

Justice Thapliyal severely criticized the state's decision to provide protection to two politicians, noting that they have criminal histories to their name. He added that the government should not give such privileges to people allegedly involved in criminal activities.

"Inhe security bhi de rahi hai state government, aur ye log pistol bhi chala raha hain...Sitting MLA ko security dena theek hai, lekin kya agar wo khud crime karta hai to use bhi security diya jayega? Wo bhi public ke paise se," he stated, questioning whether security should be provided to those engaging in criminal acts. [Translation: The state government is providing them security, and they are even firing pistols... It's fine to provide security to a sitting MLA, but should someone who commits a crime also be given security? And that too, using public funds?]

Remarks on the Accused's Criminal History

Justice Thapliyal also took exception to the conduct of the Public Prosecutor in not informing the court concerned regarding the criminal records of the ex-MLA 'Champion'. Essentially, the PP had claimed before the court that the accused had no criminal background despite the fact that the Superintendent of Police had shared a detailed criminal record with the said officer.

"Aapka Prosecution Officer, concerned court ke samne bolta hai ki Accused (Ex-MLA) ka koi criminal record nahin hai, lekin hume to bataya gaya ki SP ne DGC ko pura criminal record diya tha, lekin usne court ko nahin diya," Justice Thapliyal said. [Translation: Your prosecution officer claims before the concerned court that the accused (Ex-MLA) has no criminal record, but we were informed that the SP had provided the entire criminal record to the DGC, but it wasn't shared with the court.]

The matter will be heard next after three days, when the State Government has been asked to apprise the court about the progress in the investigation.