The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Central government to examine whether the National Investigation Agency (NIA) needs to take over the ongoing Punjab Police probe into the recent violence and arson at Lovely Professional University (LPU) [Ravi Raj v Union of India & Ors]
A bench of Chief Justice of Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor passed the order on Wednesday in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the violence that broke out after false rumours spread about alleged sexual assault of a female student on LPU campus.
The Court noted that the police, during the course of the investigation, has found material which prima facie indicates applicability of the offence of cyber terrorism under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Considering that Section 66F is a scheduled offence under the National Investigation Agency Act, the Court directed the State to forward a report with regard to commissioning of the offence in terms of Section 6 of the NIA Act, to the Central government.
Under Section 6 of the NIA Act, a State government is required to forward a report to the Central government as expeditiously as possible when it is informed with regard to commissioning of a scheduled offence.
The Court directed the State government to submit the report positively within 72 hours. It further asked the Centre to take an appropriate decision within seven days.
"The Central Government would take an appropriate decision in the matter on the basis of the report submitted by the State Government, within a week thereafter. The concerned authorities would place before the Court the developments in this regard, by the next date fixed," the Court directed in order passed on November 04.
If such a decision is taken by the Central government, then the investigation by the State would have to be stalled, and all documents in that regard would have to be referred to the Central government, the Court noted.
Considering the sensitivity of the issue raised, the bench said that the investigating agency must deal with the matter with all promptness and seriousness.
The matter will be heard next on November 17.
LPU students resorted to massive violence in September after reports of alleged rape of a female student on university campus. While the police registered a criminal case to probe the allegations, they could note conclusively establish that any such incident took place.
Following massive destruction of property and looting of various shops at the campus, classes and other academic activities at LPU were suspended on September 28 for 10 days.
The PIL before the Court was filed by Ravi Raj, a student of the LPU, seeking a direction for a CBI probe into the violence. Raj alleged that the arson and looting went on for hours after the police received information about the gathering of students at the campus.
LPU Founder Ashok Mittal is a Member of Parliament (MP). He was initially a member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and recently joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Considering Mittal's political affiliation, the plea argued that an independent probe is required to ascertain the truth behind the protest.
During the hearing of the case, the Court last month pulled up the police over lapses in investigation. It also took note of the recent violence trigged by false claims of student suicide at another campus, the Chitkara University, and asked that these incidents be investigated on priority.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Chopra with advocates Arjun Sheoran, Pranhita Singh, Tejasvi Sheokand and Heena Kadyan represented the petitioner.
Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with advocate Shreyanshi Verma represented the Central government.
Additional Advocate General Deepender Singh with Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok represented the State of Punjab.
Special Public Prosecutor Akashdeep Singh and advocate KJS Bhullar represented the CBI.
Senior Advocate Aashish Chopra with advocates Chandandeep Singh Nitik Sharma, and Abhishek Kumar represented a private respondent. Advocate RS Bajaj also represented one of the residents.
[Read Order]