Hathras case: ‘UP govt’s affidavit about constitution of SIT just eyewash’; petitioner suggests judges’ names

A reply to the UP Government's affidavit has been filed by activist Satyama Dubey in the PIL filed before the Supreme Court, seeking a court-monitored probe into the Hathras incident.

Dubey has submitted that the state's affidavit about the constitution of a SIT was just an "eyewash" and was filed even before issuing of notices, only to divert the court's attention and to demonstrate that investigation in the matter is being carried out in the right direction, legal news website LiveLaw.in has reported.

"Affidavit was filed prior to the listing of the matter before this Hon'ble Court and in Anticipation and before the issuance of the notice in the above-mentioned matter.

…SIT was constituted by the state govt. of U.P. just to divert the attention of this Hon'ble Court. In the present matter the petitioners had requested to constitute a SIT of the serving or retired judges of the Supreme Court or High. A three-member Special Investigation Team or SIT was set up by the UP Government in great rush and it has received immense criticism over its handling of the case," Dubey submitted.

He informed the court that the present SIT comprises of some respected persons but urged the court to constitute another SIT comprising of former Supreme Court judges, preferably:

• Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
• Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
• Justice Madan Bhimarao Lokur, (Retd.)
• Justice Kurian Joseph, (Retd.)
• Justice R. Banumathi, (Retd.)
• Justice Deepak Gupta, (Retd.)

as they have a very vast knowledge of the Criminal Jurisprudence.

He has submitted that the affidavit filed by the UP Government is replete of contradictions and the state only desires to shift its burden and cover up the incident. It is alleged that the police has registered the FIR under Section 307 of IPC for attempt to murder, whereas the case is that of a brutal gang-rape.

The PIL was first heard by the top court last week and directions were passed for stipulating Witness Protection Plan for the family of the victim.

The court had also that day, questioned the locus of the Petitioners, stating that they were not family.

"This is a shocking incident. That is why we are hearing you. We don't know if you have locus... you are not family…. We know you are representing the petitioners. But who are the petitioners? Who are you? Everybody is shocked by this incident, but when a court asks you this, it means what is your locus?" CJI Bobde had noted.

Responding to this, the Petitioner has submitted that he has a locus to maintain the petition as he is a citizen of the country, who was shocked by the brutal incidents and subsequent state action.

"Every citizen has a right to approach before this Hon'ble Court if any injustice is caused by the State, state authorities or state administration," he submitted.