New Delhi:
Delhi Police on Tuesday opposed a plea in the high court to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate alleged police atrocities that took place at Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) University in December 2019 following student protests against the citizenship (amendment) Act.
Police responded to a “request for amendment” – filed in a pending PIL regarding the incident of varsity violence – which also requested that FIRs filed against students be turned over to an independent body and argued that a “stranger ‘ cannot initiate a judicial investigation or investigation by a third party.
Police stated that the application was “nothing but a covert attempt by a third party intruder to interfere in criminal matters in the guise of PIL” and that a PIL applicant is not allowed to choose the members of SIT for investigating and prosecuting an alleged crime.
“The petitioners, who are third-party strangers under the garb of PIL, can seek neither a judicial inquiry nor a third-party inquiry for venting grievances of persons who failed to appear before the Hon’ble Court. It is stated that an amendment legally changing the nature of the complaint/petition cannot be allowed,” the reply read.
“It is alleged that the petitioners, who claim to be students of Jamia, have no locus to apply for FIR/judicial investigation registration or third party investigation on behalf of a third foreign national. It is clear that it is legally impermissible to to seek the intervention of the Hon’ble Courts in criminal matters in the garb of PIL,” it added.
In relation to the incident, several petitions are pending in the Supreme Court asking for directions to set up an SIT, Commission of Inquiry (CoI) or a Commission of Inquiry, medical treatment, compensation and provisional protection from arrest for the students and registration of FIRs against the wandering policemen.
The petitioners are lawyers, students of JMI, residents of Okhla in south Delhi where the university is located, and the imam of the Jama Masjid mosque opposite Parliament House.
Last month, a division bench headed by Judge Siddharth Mridul gave Delhi Police a final chance to respond to a “request for amendment” to introduce certain new prayers in a pending plea from Nabila and others.
The court scheduled the case on Tuesday for further hearing on January 12.
In their response, the police claimed that under the pretext of student agitation there was a well-planned and orchestrated attempt by some individuals with local support to deliberately commit violence in the area and that an extensive investigation was subsequently carried out by the Crime Division of the police from Delhi in different FIRs.
“It appears from the electronic evidence collected and also from the recorded statements that what happened in the guise of student agitation actually appears to be a well-planned and orchestrated attempt by some individuals with local support (who were not students) to deliberately commit violence in Area.
“As such, the petitioners’ main claim that it was just a student protest and that the demonstration was peaceful is an utter lie,” the reply read.
The police stated that it was illegal for the petitioner to expand the scope of the pending petition by including an untenable and unsustainable prayer and by seeking unjustified interference in criminal proceedings that have already begun and are at an advanced stage. stage is located.
The research firm said it is up to the alleged victims to challenge their legal remedy in the appropriate court and none of the allegedly aggrieved students have approached a court to date.
It went on to say that the petitioner’s prayer for the names of individuals to be nominated for the SIT was untenable, “smacks of malice and is ostensibly trying to achieve something clandestine behind the facade of a public interest lawsuit”.
“There are adequate safeguards in the law to protect the interests of any individual claiming to be an injured victim, claiming to be innocent or demonstrating false involvement in a criminal offence.
“It is therefore up to the person concerned against whom criminal proceedings are initiated to develop his legal remedy, as provided for in CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure),” the reply read.
In the petition, the only prayer that survives in the petition was for directions to set up a court-controlled commission to conduct a judicial inquiry into the alleged violence by police and paramilitary forces, police said.
On October 19, the Supreme Court asked the Supreme Court to “take early notice” of the petitions related to the incidents of violence, noting that “these cases have been pending before the Supreme Court for some time.”
In the main petitions, the petitioners argued that there was a need for an SIT that is independent from the police and central government, who have shown by their conduct that their investigations into the violence were “not independent”.
They have said such a move would also “reassure the public” and restore people’s confidence in the system.
Earlier, the police had opposed the petitions, saying that the waivers requested by the petitioners cannot be granted as charges have been filed in connection with the violence and they should have sought all desired remedies from the relevant subordinate court.
On the issue of police entering the varsity without permission, the police counsel had said that international police are not denied access to educational institutions and universities.
With regard to providing compensation to students seriously injured in the violence, he had said that the same can only be awarded if the violation is acknowledged and the matter is still under investigation in this case.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by DailyExpertNews staff and is being published from a syndicated feed.)
Featured video of the day
Will AAP Replace Congress in 2024?