The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused the Gujarat government's request to keep under wraps the final report filed by the apex court-appointed Justice (retired) H.S. Bedi Monitoring Committee into 21 police encounters which occurred during the chief ministerial era of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi directed the confidential report to be shared with the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitioners, lyricist Javed Akhtar and those representing the late journalist, B.G. Verghese.
The court did not relent to Gujarat's plea to bar the petitioners from sharing the report with the media.
The final and 11th report of the Justice Bedi Monitoring Committee was filed in the apex court in January last year. It has been kept confidential all this while.
'Not accepting the report, but should to be shared'
"This will prejudice the case of the accused as well as the victims," Gujarat counsel Rajat Nair, who was standing in for Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, protested. Mr. Nair initially asked for an adjournment as the Solicitor General was occupied in another court. But the court refused, following which he argued the case.
Responding to Mr. Nair, the CJI asked him for the record: “Who are you?”
To this, Mr. Nair replied “State of Gujarat.”
“Then look after your own interests,” Chief Justice Gogoi said.
The court clarified that it was not "accepting" the conclusions arrived at by Justice Bedi, a retired Supreme Court judge.
"We are not accepting the report. We are only saying the report should be shared," Chief Justice Gogoi said.
"It (J. Bedi's report) is a 225-page report. We do not know what the report says. The stage of acceptance of the report will come later. The report was submitted to this court as per our orders. You (Gujarat) say whatever you have to say when the report is considered later," the Chief Justice orally addressed the Gujarat side.
Then it was the turn of senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who said he was appearing some of the "potential accused", to resist the move to share the Bedi report.
Mr. Dwivedi said the PIL petitioners have no locus standi. The case would be prematurely prejudiced against the accused if the Supreme Court puts its seal on the report. He said the report was based on the merits of the encounter cases and a reflection on the alleged conduct and criminality of certain persons involved. He said only the trial court could take cognisance of the Justice Bedi report.
To this, Chief Justice Gogoi retorted by asking Mr. Dwivedi whether he wanted the apex court to send the report now itself to the trial court for taking cognisance.
‘Retired judge acted within the ambit of the authority’
In the previous hearing, Gujarat had objected to the report itself. It alleged that Justice Bedi had prepared the report without consulting the other members of the monitoring committee.
The court responded by asking Justice Bedi to file a written response clarifying his position.
On Wednesday, after perusing Justice Bedi's response, the court said the retired judge had acted within the ambit of the authority given to him by the Supreme Court in 2012.
"When a retired judge of this court in whom we repose trust says he has done what the court ordered, should we now not accept the report?" Chief Justice Gogoi observed.
Justice Bedi was requested by the court to take over as the monitoring authority's chairperson in 2012 when another retired apex court judge, Justice M.B. Shah, had declined the assignment.
It was on December 3 first that a Bench led by Chief Justice Gogoi expressed the court's resolve to hear the petitions filed by Mr. Akhtar and Mr. Verghese in 2007.
The petitioners had sought a fair probe into the encounters.
Suspicions about encounter deaths
In his petition, the late Mr. Verghese had raised suspicions about the encounter deaths between 2003 and 2006. He had produced on record before the court the very list that the Gujarat government had furnished to the State Legislative Assembly on the details of the encounters.
The list, he had alleged, showed that the encounter killings span a range of persons that included migrant workmen to suspected terrorists, all aged between 22 and 37. “There is a need to investigate this pattern and there must be a system in place to ensure that armed personnel do not easily do away with lives of citizens,” he had submitted.
Mr. Akhtar had highlighted a case involving the killing of Sameer Khan and alleged that in all these cases the police version was invariably that the victims were terrorists from Jaish-e-Mohammed on a mission to assassinate Mr. Modi.
The court had then made it clear that the cases did not include those already under investigation by the CBI or SIT as per Supreme Court or High Court orders. This would mean the Sohrabuddin-Kauser Bi,Tulsiram Prajapati and Ishrat Jahan cases were outside purview.
