Allegation of bias towards NHRC panel not materials: Calcutta High Court decide


“This court has considered not only the report of the Committee but other materials as well and arguments of learned Counsel based thereon,” Justice Mukerji noticed.

Penning his observations in a concurring judgement on handing over of the investigation into heinous crimes in post-poll violence in West Bengal to the CBI, Justice IP Mukerji stated the allegation of bias towards the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) committee was not materials.

Justice Mukerji of the Calcutta High Court noticed the committee constituted by the NHRC had solely energy underneath the order of the five-judge Bench to report on details as gathered by them on investigation.

“The allegation of bias against the Committee is not material because this court has considered not only the report of the Committee but other materials as well and arguments of learned Counsel based thereon,” Justice Mukerji noticed within the concurring judgement handed by the Bench on a clutch of PILs, searching for unbiased probe into alleged post-poll violence and compensation to victims.

“Therefore the part of the report expressing opinion, making recommendations etc. is non-est in the eye of law,” he noticed within the judgement delivered on Thursday.

The Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and justices I. P. Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar, ordered a CBI probe into heinous crimes similar to rape, try to rape and homicide and formation of an SIT comprising three senior IPS officers into different circumstances of alleged post-poll violence in West Bengal.

In his observations, Justice Mukerji stated the submission of the Election Commission is totally proper that conduct of elections was with it, however the administration was with the federal government.

The authorities stated that the EC was in cost as much as May 5 “The Election Commission, in my opinion, is theoretically correct. But, it is also true that the Election Commission had directed the administration to transfer officials with administrative duties and post them according to its direction at the time when it was in charge of the election.

“If offences had occurred as a consequence of the polls, it was also the duty of the Election Commission at least to direct or advise the administration to register the complaints which it did not,” Justice Mukerji noticed.

He noticed that between the polls and assumption of workplace by the brand new authorities, the Election Commission ought to have performed a extra constructive position in directing the administration to register the complaints.

“If the offence is established, the wrong doers have to be brought to justice. Only then will the entire system be seen as fair, just and transparent by the ordinary people,” the decide stated.

Justice Harish Tandon, in his observations, stated that it’s a salutary operate of the court docket to guard their rights assured underneath the structure.

“The Court cannot be a mute spectator nor should be apathetic to the voices of the persons who felt aggrieved but must rise to an occasion to protect such rights,” he noticed.

“There may be cases which are not relatable to post-poll violence but the persons have been deprived of their rights being not addressed through a well-recognised system in place and therefore there is no fetter on the part of the Court to entrust investigation to impartial, independent agency constituted for the purpose of rendering justice to deprived persons,” Justice Tandon stated.

Justice Soumen Sen, in his concurring judgement, stated “it would be unfair to impute biasness against the members of the fact finding committee who otherwise have done a commendable job in collecting and compiling complaints.” He stated that in his view the inclusion of Rajulben Desai, Atif Rashid and Rajeev Jain within the committee doesn’t vitiate its report.

“Although I felt that having regard to the antecedents of Rajulben Desai and Atif Rashid the inclusion of the said two members could have been avoided as it might raise reasonable likelihood of bias,” Justice Sen noticed.

“Although the fact finding committee has made scathing remarks and made recommendations against politicians and police officers I am of the view that such remarks and recommendations were uncalled for and to that extent the committee has transgressed its limits,” he stated.

Opposing the findings and suggestions of the NHRC committee report, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State DGP, had claimed throughout submissions that it was inaccurate and biased.

Claiming that a couple of members of the seven-member committee had hyperlinks with the BJP, he prayed that it ought to be rejected by the court docket.



Source link