SC notice to U.P. on plea opposing dropping of riots case against CM

Apex court seeks reply from State government in four weeks

August 21, 2018 01:52 am | Updated 01:52 am IST - New Delhi

LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH, 10/07/2018 :YOGI_MSME INDUSTRY CONCLAVE: UP CM, Yogi Adityanath, during  UP Industries Conclave, organised by Indian Industries Association at Lucknow on July 10, 2018. 
Photo: Rajeev Bhatt.

LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH, 10/07/2018 :YOGI_MSME INDUSTRY CONCLAVE: UP CM, Yogi Adityanath, during UP Industries Conclave, organised by Indian Industries Association at Lucknow on July 10, 2018. Photo: Rajeev Bhatt.

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Uttar Pradesh government’s response on a petition challenging the dropping of the 2007 Gorakhpur riots case against Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud issued notice and sought a reply from the State government in four weeks.

“Issue notice. Let a copy of the petition be served on the caveator. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks hence. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks therefrom. List after six weeks,” the Bench said.

On January 27, 2007, an FIR was lodged at Kotwali police station in Gorakhpur against Mr. Adityanath, then a Member of Parliament, and several others on charges of promoting enmity between two groups. It was alleged that several incidents of violence were reported in Gorakhpur on that day after an alleged hate speech by Mr. Adityanath.

On February 1, the Allahabad High Court had upheld the quashing of a magistrate’s order that had taken cognisance of a chargesheet against Mr. Adityanath in connection with the riot case. The HC had dismissed the petition against the Sessions Court verdict filed by Parvez Parwaz, at whose instance the FIR was registered against Mr. Adityanath and others.

Parwaz had challenged the sessions court’s January 28, 2017 decision quashing the Magistrate’s order on the grounds that he was not heard by the court. He had argued before the High Court that being the informant in the case, he was a necessary party, but the sessions judge had set aside the order without impleading him.

The CID had completed its probe in 2015 and sought sanction for prosecution that year. The then Akhilesh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party government in the State had not granted sanction to prosecute Mr. Adityanath.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.