New Delhi: No petition seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention into the alleged police excesses during the July 20 crackdown on student protesters in the national capital had been filed, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said on Friday.
He criticised what he described as “reckless” reports suggesting that the court had refused to list such a matter.
The issue surfaced before a bench headed by the CJI when senior advocate Shoeb Alam mentioned an unrelated matter arising out of a Bombay High Court judgment and sought an urgent hearing, as reported by Hindustan Times.
The CJI referred to the controversy surrounding reports that the Supreme Court had declined to hear a plea over the July 20 police action, saying that the registry had verified the records and found that no writ petition had been instituted.
“It has happened recently that nothing was filed and the matter was mentioned before us…I checked from the registry, and not a single page has been filed in the Supreme Court,” CJI Kant said.
What had reached the court was only a representation, he said, adding: “It was one representation…sent by that Mishra or someone. How can I treat the representation as a writ petition? And people start recklessly reporting this,” said the CJI, presiding over a bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
“In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a matter was filed, and the media is absolutely free from all responsibility, recklessly falsely reporting that the Chief Justice refused to list the matter. Till morning 10, not a single page had been filed,” the CJI said.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to entertain an oral request by advocate Narendra Mishra to take suo motu cognisance of the alleged police brutality during the July 20 Parliament march.
During the hearing, Mishra referred to a letter petition addressed to the CJI and urged the court to examine videos allegedly showing police personnel assaulting protesters.
The Court declined the request, with the CJI telling the lawyer not to “waste” the court’s time. “We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch,” the bench had observed while refusing an urgent listing.
Later that day, the Delhi High Court directed authorities to preserve CCTV footage, videography and other records relating to the police action, while seeking responses from the Centre and the Delhi Police on petitions challenging the crackdown. The matter is scheduled to be heard on September 11.
