MOHAMMAD ANIS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by an Inspector of Police (U. P. State Service) is yet another attempt at thwarting the implementation of this court's order dated 15/05/1992 passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1118 of 1991. An abridged version of the events which led to the passing of that order may first be stated.

(2.) On July 12/13, 1991, an incident occurred in Pilibhit area of the State of U. P, in which 10 persons were killed on the spot in what came to be officiallystated as 'encounters' between the Punjab Militants and the Local Police. The Times of India highlighted the incident on the basis whereof Shri R. S. Sodhi, an advocate practising in this court, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging infringement of Article 21 and related provisions. The issue figured in the Parliament and two teams of MPs belonging to the Congress (1 and the BJP rushed to the spot for an on-the-spot assessment. Their reports were placed on the record of the proceedings along with the report of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit. Certain local police officers suspected to be involved in the incidents, were immediately transferred and the investigation was handed over to an officer of the level of an Inspector General. The State government also appointed a one-member Commission headed by a Judge of the Allahabad High court to inquire into the incident but the work of the Commission did not commence on account of stay obtained in a writ petition. The allegations were mainly directed against the local police by the kith and kin of those who were killed in the alleged encounters. Doubts were expressed regarding the fairness of the investigation as it was feared that as the local police was alleged to be involved in the encounters, the investigation by an officer of the U. P. Cadre may not be impartial. This court refrained from expressing any opinion on the allegations made by either side but thought it wise to have the incidents investigated by an independent agency, the central Bureau of Investigation, so that it may bear credibility. This court felt that no matter how faithfully and honestly the local police may carry out the investigation the same will lack credibility as the allegations were directed against them. This court, therefore, thought it both desirable and advisable and in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation to the CBI so that it may complete the investigation at an early date. It was clearly stated that in so ordering no reflection on either the local police or the State government was intended. This court merely acted in public interest.

(3.) After this order when the CBI authorities approached the local police as well as officers in the Home Department of the State government, they did not receive the desired cooperation and the case papers were not handed over to them. This was communicated to this court. After inquiring into the matter another order was passed on January 11, 1993, directing the Home secretary, U. P. , to take immediate steps to ensure compliance with the order dated 15/05/1992. Direction was also issued to the then DGP, U. P. , Shri Prakash Singh, INDIAN POLICE SERVICE and secretary, Home, U. P. , Shri Prabhat Kumar, INDIAN administrative SERVICE to show cause why action for their failure to comply with this court's order of 15/05/1992, should not be initiated against them. In response to the notices so issued both the officers filed affidavits dated April 7 and 13, 1993, expressing unconditional and unqualified apology for their failure to promptly comply with this court's order. This court taking a lenient view acted on the statement that necessary action had already been taken to comply with the order of 15/05/1992 and accepting the apology tendered by the said two officers, discharged the notices by the order of 16/04/1993. As nothing further survived the petition was disposed of. It will thus be seen that unfortunately the U. P. Police did not take the order of this court dated 15/05/1992, in the right spirit and tried to create hurdles in its implementation, notwithstanding the fact that a Review Petition No. 549 of 1992 was also rejected earlier.