Approach HC: Supreme Court on plea by Hathras victim’s family for relocation to Delhi

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea filed by the family of the deceased victim in the Hathras gang rape case seeking their relocation outside Uttar Pradesh, preferably to Delhi. [Satendra Kumar & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors]

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said it would not be proper to examine the matter at this stage since it is already pending before the Allahabad High Court.

“We are of the opinion that it would not be proper for this Court to consider the order dated 22.02.2025 for two reasons.... First, the present SLP is limited to the interim order dated 27.06.2022, and much time has passed since then. Second, the said order is presently under review before the High Court. We request the High Court to take up the challenge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,” the Court said.

The Bench also noted that the Allahabad High Court is already seized of challenge to government order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding relocation of the victim’s family.

“This order is also the subject matter of proceedings before the High Court. The High Court has called for a response from the Government regarding its correctness,” the Supreme Court added.

The victim, a 19-year-old Dalit woman, was gang-raped in Hathras on September 14, 2020. She later succumbed to her injuries at Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi on September 29.

The case triggered nationwide outrage after the UP Police and administration allegedly cremated her body forcefully without the family's consent or their presence, in the dead of the night.

In March 2023, a special court acquitted three accused and convicted one in the gang rape case.

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), in July 2022, directed the State to consider providing employment to a member of the victim’s family and to relocate them within State of UP for their rehabilitation.

However, it did not allow relocation outside the State.

Before the Supreme Court, advocate Purshottam Tripathi, representing the NGO Dalit Bachao Andolan, submitted that the High Court had effectively declined relief on key aspects, including relocation outside the State.

Tripathi pressed for relocation to Delhi and submitted that despite assurances by the UP government to provide employment to a member of the victim’s family, the same had not been provided.

At this stage, the Bench said the matter is already pending before the High Court.

“How are you simultaneously pursuing remedies in two jurisdictions?”

The counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh opposed the plea and submitted that a government memorandum was issued pursuant to earlier directions, identifying alternative locations such as Aligarh, Etah and Kasganj within the State.

It was argued that the High Court remains seized of the matter.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for the deceased victim’s brother, submitted that the difficulty lay in the High Court’s perceived jurisdictional limitation in directing relocation to Delhi.

“The difficulty is that the High Court feels it cannot direct residence or employment in Delhi due to jurisdictional limitations. If such a direction could be issued for Delhi, then I would have no difficulty,” Pracha said.

After hearing all the parties, the Supreme Court said High Court is already seized of the matter.

In view of this, the Court disposed of the petition and requested the High Court to decide the pending issues expeditiously in accordance with law.