Gujarat Encounters | Police Officers Identified In Justice HS Bedi's Enquiry Report Must Be Prosecuted: Petitioners To Supreme Court

In pleas relating to fake encounter killings allegedly carried out by the Gujarat Police during 2002-2007, the Supreme Court today (January 18) was informed by petitioners that the Report of Justice HS Bedi-led Monitoring Committee has found foul play in 3 cases out of a total of 17, and as such, the police officers identified in the Report must be prosecuted.

After a brief hearing of submissions, the Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta adjourned the matter by 2 weeks.

Pithily put, the present petitions were filed by journalist BG Verghese (since expired), poet-lyricist Javed Akhthar and social worker Shabnam Hashmi, alleging that the Gujarat police encounters were fake and stage-managed. In furtherance, the Supreme Court, in 2012, had appointed Retd. Justice HS Bedi (former SC Judge) as the Chairman of a Monitoring Committee to monitor the investigation carried out by the Special Task Force (STF) in relation to the encounter killings.

Justice Bedi had submitted a report to the court in 2018 in a sealed cover. Overruling the objections of the government, this report was directed by the court to be made public.

Suffice it to mention, Retd. Justice HS Bedi's report had prima facie found evidence of foul play in 3 out of 17 cases, i.e. those of Kasam Jafar, Haji Haji Ismail and Sameer Khan, and recommended prosecution of 9 police officers involved in the cases.

In 2022, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had observed that it remained to be seen whether any directions were required to be passed by the court following the report of the Monitoring Committee.

Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reiterated an earlier stance that the petitioners were targeting a particular State (i.e. Gujarat) for alleged encounters in a particular span of time. He submitted that public interest cannot be 'selective' and petitioners must explain the same.

On this aspect, Justice Sandeep Mehta said, "there is another petition coming up today...with respect to Uttar Pradesh".

On the SG's contention that the petitioners are fighting for details, statements, evidence, etc., Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan countered that the petitioners are not on that. She contended that since Justice Bedi's report is before the court, wherein 3 out of 17 cases have been prima facie found to reflect foul play, the matter must be tried. It was asserted that the entire exercise of the Monitoring Committee as well as its Report cannot be rendered meaningless.

Supplementing the same, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said that what is required to be done is that the persons identified in Justice Bedi's report must be prosecuted and a Public Prosecutor appointed for the purposes.

During the hearing, the SG sought to urge that if the court decides to go into the question of providing details to the petitioners, the persons who may be potentially accused may be heard. Rejecting the claim, Justice Sandeep Mehta said that pre-cognizance hearing to the accused is against the principles of law.

"Pre-cognizance hearing to a potential accused is not required".

Counsels for petitioners: Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan; AOR Prashant Bhushan and M/s K J John And Co; Advocate Suroor Mander

Counsels for respondents: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; Additional Solicitor Generals SV Raju and Aishwarya Bhati; Advocates Udai Khanna, Swati Ghildiyal, Rajat Nair, Anirudh Bhat, Madhav Sinhal, Amit Nair, Srishti Mishra, Atiga Singh and Devyani Bhatt; AORs Mishra Saurabh, Hemantika Wahi, Ruchi Kohli, Diksha Rai and Arvind Kumar Sharma

Case Title: B.G Verghese v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr., W.P.(Crl) 31/2007 (and connected matter)