The Supreme Court will hear today petitions concerning the violence during the student protests.One set of petitions seeks action against police officials who allegedly used excessive force.Petitions have also been filed on behalf of officials who allegedly sustained injuries. One petition has been filed over the use of pellet guns against the protesters.A bench comprising Chief Justice of...
The Supreme Court will hear today petitions concerning the violence during the student protests.
One set of petitions seeks action against police officials who allegedly used excessive force.
Petitions have also been filed on behalf of officials who allegedly sustained injuries. One petition has been filed over the use of pellet guns against the protesters.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana will hear the matters.
Last week, the bench had indicated that it will appoint a Special Investigation Team to investigate the issue. The bench had also issued interim directions to preserve the CCTV footage and other official records regarding the incidents.
The bench also restrained coercive actions against students in the FIRs, while allowing the States to proceed with the investigation.
Follow this page for live updates.
BREAKING| Student Protests : Supreme Court Clarifies States Can Close/Withdraw FIRs Against Protesters
Counsel: I went to Nizamuddin police station to provide legal aid to the persons in lockup. I was beaten up there. The CCTV footage maybe preserved.
Court lists the matter on 18th August.
Divan: on the next date SIT may be considered as well as the terms of reference for the committee.
CJI: we would like to lay down a protocol on how it can be used.
Advocate Vrinda Grover on use of pellet gun: there is no standing order of Delhi Police that allows that use of pellet guns or mentions the weapon of pellet gun. The petition is not saying that the police should not have anything to protect itself. But this particular weapon is unfit for use.
CJI: a police officer involved in excessive force should not be unduly protected. And it should not be that a hardened criminal under the garb of student protest is also getting protected.
Counsel: the only way the government has identified all the protest goers is by using facial recognition technology. This needs to be examined. We have not given consent for use of our biometric data.
Mehta: it was not just facial recognition but social media and other things too.
Counsel:
CJI: whatever composition of the SIT may be constituted it may be headed by a former judge. And instead of SIT it may be a high powered committee.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan: It may be headed by a former CJI
Mehta: I shared the list with Ms. Vrinda Grover. There were rape cases, murder cases, POCSO cases etc. Nothing with driving violation.
Order: the term criminal antecedents in the order is clarified to mean grave and hennas offences.
Mehta: that's how we have also understood.
Sankarnarayanan: the police cannot be permitted to act like this. There is no question of it. We have placed videos. We are inviting the court's attention to this something this serious. Let the affidavit answer these questions. The responsibility has to be fixed.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi: when learned SG says that he will look into it perhaps without a clarification of a lot ships order he cannot look into it. These are students, somebody may have a driving violation or a petty offence, or due to a political case. The word criminal antecedent needs to be clarified.
Singhvi: I am asking for addition of one sentence - excluding petty offences and political protest.
Counsel: unless there is a murder case or a rape case... this term criminal antecedent is too wide