Latest news with #NKotiswarSingh
Hindustan Times
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC asks AHRC to probe Assam ‘fake encounters'
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to conduct an independent and expeditious probe into 171 alleged fake police encounters in the state that resulted in 56 deaths and 145 injuries between May 2021 and August 2022. A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh reinstated complaints before the AHRC that had been stalled since January 2022, emphasising that 'fair and impartial inquiry' was essential to ensure justice for victims and uphold the rule of law. The court's intervention came after the Gauhati High Court dismissed a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in January 2023. The AHRC had earlier refused to examine the complaints citing the pending high court hearing. Lawyer Arif Mohammad Yeasin Jwadder filed the petition alleging that Assam police violated Supreme Court guidelines established in the 2014 People's Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra case. The PUCL judgment mandated magisterial inquiries following encounter deaths, FIR registration, and forensic examination of weapons. The Assam government acknowledged before the high court that 171 police encounters occurred during the specified period, resulting in 56 deaths—including four custodial deaths—and 145 injuries. Petitioner's advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that procedural safeguards were violated, citing instances where FIRs were registered against victims, investigations were conducted by police from the same state or district, and ballistic reports were not obtained in all cases. Justice Kant, who authored the judgment, noted that while some of the petitioner's allegations appeared 'factually incorrect or incomplete,' the gravity of issues involving Article 21 fundamental rights required meaningful enforcement of procedural safeguards. 'The principle of fairness, which is the bedrock of all just legal processes, mandates that any inquiry into the alleged excesses must be independent and insulated from institutional bias,' the bench stated. The court directed the AHRC to issue public notices inviting victims and family members to come forward; publish notices in at least one national English daily and a prominent vernacular newspaper; preserve victim confidentiality; and engage serving or retired police officers of 'impeccable integrity' for deeper probes if required, provided they outrank those under investigation. The state, represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional advocate general Nalin Kohli, was ordered to provide access to records, forensic resources, and remove institutional barriers hindering the AHRC's functioning. The Assam State Legal Services Authority was directed to provide legal assistance to victims, while the petitioner was permitted to assist the AHRC if engaged by victims. The court also set aside the high court's earlier order, resolving jurisdictional issues that had prevented the matter from proceeding. The court clarified that its order should not be seen as finding 'mala fides or institutional bias' against the state. It refused to issue broad directives for independent probes, stating that 'broad-brush directives without individual scrutiny could result in miscarriage of justice.' The bench noted that the AHRC, headed by a retired chief justice of the Gauhati High Court, was well-positioned to conduct the inquiry with 'sensitivity, impartiality, and diligence.' Jwadder welcomed the verdict, calling it a 'legal milestone' and a moment of hope for ordinary citizens seeking justice. 'This is a step towards justice for those voiceless families who have suffered silently, whose sons were shot and labelled without trial, without proof, without remorse,' he said. While his petition sought a CBI or Special Investigation Team probe, Jwadder said handing the matter to an independent constitutional body would help truth emerge. 'No one wearing a uniform should feel empowered to take a life without fearing the consequences. This fight will go on not just in the courtroom, but in the conscience of the nation,' he added. HT reached out to the Assam government and the Opposition but did not get a comment. (With inputs from Utpal Parashar)
Hindustan Times
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Flagging ‘blatant breach', SC closes contempt against DDA
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in contempt for illegally felling over 1,000 trees in Delhi's Ridge area without its permission, calling the move a blatant breach of environmental norms and judicial orders. However, the court spared stringent action against top DDA officials, citing the 'overwhelming public interest' served by a new road leading to a multi-specialty hospital for the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the illegal tree-felling for the road to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS) was a 'classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach.' 'It is only the overwhelming public interest served by the establishment of CAPFIMS that has, in effect, overshadowed the sheer administrative incompetence and blatant disregard for both established procedures and the orders of this court,' the bench observed. The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by Delhi resident Bindu Kapurea. In March, it had dismissed the DDA's application seeking permission to fell trees in the Ridge area, noting that many of the trees had already been cut. The 1996 judgment in MC Mehta vs Union of India makes it mandatory for prior approval from the Supreme Court for any tree-felling in the ecologically sensitive Ridge. DDA's internal inquiry had named executive engineer Manoj Kumar Yadav, officials Pawan Kumar and Ayush Saraswat, and superintendent engineer Pankaj Verma for suppressing facts from the court. While sparing them imprisonment, the court imposed an environmental fee of ₹25,000 on each, directed departmental action, and issued an official 'censure.' 'These acts... fall squarely within the ambit of 'criminal contempt' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,' the court said. 'It is the good fortune of the concerned DDA officials that this larger objective has weighed in their favour, without which this court may have been compelled to adopt a far more stringent approach and deal with an iron fist,' it added. To prevent future violations, the bench mandated that all orders or notifications relating to tree felling, afforestation, or construction activity with ecological impact must explicitly mention any pending cases before the court. 'This direction is being issued to ensure that, in future, the plea of ignorance is not taken as a defence,' the order stated. The petition, argued by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and assisted by advocate Manan Verma, detailed how trees were felled in February 2024 under orders from Delhi lieutenant governor VK Saxena, issued under the Delhi Protection of Trees Act. The tree felling was completed before DDA's application for permission was even heard on March 4. The court was later told that Saxena only became aware of the felling in June, when informed by the DDA vice-chairperson. 'Such actions raise fundamental concerns about governance and accountability,' the court said. 'We truly hope that these proceedings have been conducive to incorporating necessary course corrections by the DDA and other bodies.' To compensate for the environmental damage, the court accepted DDA's proposal to undertake a large-scale afforestation drive over 180 acres. A court-nominated panel—comprising former Indian Forest Service officer Ishwar Singh, ex-principal chief conservator of forests Sunil Limaye, and environmentalist Pradip Kishen—will inspect the land and recommend suitable native species, planting methodology, and post-care maintenance. The Delhi government's forest department has been directed to implement the plantation, while DDA will bear the costs. The court ordered biannual progress reports from the DDA and Delhi government, complete with photographs and videos. It also asked both agencies to implement a separate expert report recommending steps to enhance Delhi's green cover. As a further safeguard, the court allowed the Delhi government and DDA to identify whether the new road had disproportionately benefited any affluent individuals and to levy a one-time charge on them in proportion to the construction cost. The court, however, cleared the way for completion of the road project. 'The die is cast, and what is done cannot now be undone—any refusal to put institutions like CAPFIMS to optimal use or to undo road construction at this stage risks not only undermining public interest but also squandering significant public resources,' it noted. The bench concluded by acknowledging the necessity of such medical facilities for paramilitary forces, stating, 'Such institutions... are not a privilege but an imperative necessity.' Despite DDA's violations, the court accepted that its actions were in good faith and in service of the welfare state's moral compass.
United News of India
28-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC slams DDA for illegal tree felling in Delhi Ridge
New Delhi, May 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) officials for illegally felling trees in the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge area without obtaining the Court's permission. The contempt proceedings relate to a road-widening project undertaken to facilitate access to the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital. A bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, held that the conduct of DDA officials amounted to criminal contempt, categorising it as a "classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach." The Court expressed serious concern over the wilful and conscious concealment of the tree-felling from the judiciary. 'As a nation rooted in rule of law, there is immense faith placed in the judiciary... When there is wilful disregard, the Court ought to take a strict view,' the bench stated. 'The respondents' conduct has been contemptuous. Their acts fall in the scope of criminal contempt.' The Court noted that the tree-felling had already occurred by the time the matter reached it and said this deliberate non-disclosure 'strikes at the heart of the judicial process'. In a bid to prevent similar occurrences in the future, the Court mandated that all notifications or orders related to afforestation, road construction, or any ecologically sensitive activity must clearly mention the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court. This is to ensure that ignorance of legal proceedings is not used as a shield in future violations. The Court closed contempt proceedings against former DDA Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda, who is no longer associated with the authority. However, it imposed an environmental compensation of Rs 25,000 each on other officials, apart from any departmental action that may be taken. The Court also issued a formal censure against them. Acknowledging the significance of the CAPFIMS hospital project for paramilitary personnel, the bench said that while public interest may justify infrastructure needs, it cannot override legal mandates or ecological responsibility. 'Ensuring access to quality medical care is not a privilege, but a necessity. These personnel and their families often remain voiceless. Public interest weighs heavily with us,' said Justice Kant. The Court directed the DDA and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to take urgent corrective measures. A Court-constituted committee will oversee this process, including identification of 185 acres of land for compensatory afforestation, framing and implementation of an afforestation plan by the Forest Department under committee supervision, submission of a joint report by DDA and the Forest Department on the upkeep of afforested areas and additional measures to enhance Delhi's green cover, to be proposed by the committee. The Court further directed that the periodic compliance reports be submitted before it. The Court also instructed the Delhi government to identify the beneficiaries of the road project and impose a one-time levy in proportion to the construction cost. The contempt case arose from parallel proceedings before different benches of the Supreme Court regarding tree-felling in the Delhi Ridge for road construction between Main Chhattarpur Road and the CAPFIMS Hospital. Initially, Justice Abhay S Oka's bench in the M C Mehta case and Justice B R Gavai's bench (now CJI) in the T N Godavarman matter heard the cases. Justice Oka's bench had warned of issuing contempt notice to Delhi LG V K Saxena, who also chairs the DDA, based on findings that indicated his possible involvement in the decision. The Court noted that the tree felling appeared to be an attempt to bypass land acquisition hurdles in the Chhattarpur farmhouse area. However, following objections from Justice Gavai's bench regarding jurisdictional overlaps, all related matters were consolidated under one bench. The final judgment came from the bench led by Justice Surya Kant, which took a fresh view, independent of previous proceedings. The Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on January 21 after extensive hearings and submissions by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and other counsel. While acknowledging the illegal felling of trees, the Court stressed that the breach of judicial orders must be addressed firmly to preserve the sanctity of court directions. UNI SNG SS
India Gazette
28-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
SC asks Assam Human Rights Commission to probe alleged fake encounter cases
New Delhi [India], May 28 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Assam State Human Rights Commission to inquire into all alleged incidents of extra-judicial killings in the state. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh use of excessive or unlawful force by public authorities in victim cannot be legitimised. 'This is a case of encounters in the state of Assam. The use of excessive or unlawful force by public authorities against a victim cannot be legitimised. We have held that just compilation of cases cannot lead to judicial directions as it may shield the guilty,' the bench stated in its verdict. Though the bench observed that a mere compilation of cases cannot lead to omnibus judicial directions, it acknowledged that the allegation of fake encounters is serious. The allegation that some of these incidents may involve fake encounters is indeed serious and if proven, would amount to a grave violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, said the bench. 'It is also equally possible that upon a fair, impartial and independent investigation, some of these cases might turn out to be necessary and legally justified,' it added. The verdict of the top court came on a petition filed by advocate Arif Yeasin Jwadder against a Gauhati High Court order refusing to order an independent probe into the encounters. The apex court said that some of the cases flagged by the state of Assam may warrant further evaluation to ascertain whether the guidelines previously laid down by the Supreme Court have been complied with. The bench further said that victims of the alleged incidents or their families must be given a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings and directed the State Human Rights Commission to issue a public notice. If the Commission concludes that further investigation is warranted, it shall be at liberty to do so, the apex court said. The petition while raising concern over alleged fake encounters in the state, had sought the registration of FIRs against the accused police personnel. (ANI)
India Today
28-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Impartial probe needed: Supreme Court heat on Assam over 'fake' encounters
The Supreme Court has directed the Assam Human Rights Commission to conduct an "impartial and diligent" inquiry into 171 alleged cases of fake encounter killings by police in that the allegations were serious, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh directed the commission to issue a public notice asking families of alleged encounter victims to come allegation that some of these incidents may involve fake encounters is indeed serious and, if proven, would amount to a violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is also equally possible that upon a fair, impartial and independent investigation, some of these cases might turn out to be necessary and legally justified," the court said. The petition was filed by an advocate, Arif Yeasin Jwadder, after the Gauhati High Court had dismissed his plea in 2023 concerning alleged fake encounters by Assam has alleged that over 80 such encounters have led to 28 deaths and 48 injuries since May 2021, when Himanta Biswa Sarma took General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Assam government, argued that an investigation would demoralise the security personnel, who put their lives at stake to safeguard the nation from terror attacks and militancy.'PROTECTION OF IDENTITY ESSENTIAL'advertisementWhile passing the order, the top court issued a string of guidelines for the state commission, saying the alleged victims or their families must be given a fair opportunity to participate in the court also directed the commission to ensure the confidentiality of the identity of the alleged victims. "The protection of identity is essential to create an atmosphere of trust... ensure families of the victims are not disadvantaged," the Supreme Court bench the Supreme Court said that if the commission felt a more detailed probe was required, it could engage retired police officials of "impeccable integrity" for court also asked the Assam government to ensure that all requirements are met and ensure access of all records to the human rights commission.
