Lakhimpur Kheri: Supreme Court says no confidence in UP judicial commission; probe should be monitored by judge from different State

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it does not have confidence in the judicial commission constituted by Uttar Pradesh (UP) government to monitor the probe by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the Lakhimpur Kheri incident in which farmers protesting against Farm Laws in Uttar Pradesh were mowed down by a four wheeler belonging to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister of State Ajay Mishra Teni..The UP government had constituted a one man commission of retired Allahabad High Court judge Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava to monitor the investigation.The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said that the same needs to be done by a retired High Court judge from a different State.The Court, therefore, suggested the names of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain or Justice Ranjit Singh both retired judges from Punjab and Haryana High Court. "To ensure that there is no mix up of evidence in the case we are inclined to appoint a former judge of a different high court to monitor this probe. We are not confident of having your state judicial committee oversee it. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain or Justice Ranjit Singh from Punjab and Haryana High Court can oversee this," the Bench remarked.Senior Counsel Harish Salve, representing the UP government said that he will seek instructions whereupon the Court posted the case for hearing on Friday, November 12.The Court was hearing a petition registered on the basis of letters seeking registration of an FIR in the matter as well as punishment to the guilty parties involved in the incident.Two lawyers from Uttar Pradesh had written a letter to CJI NV Ramana seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In their letter, Advocates Shivkumar Tripathi and CS Panda also sought a direction to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure the registration of an FIR in the matter as well as punishment to the guilty parties involved in the incident.Previously, the Court had expressed its displeasure with the manner in which the Uttar Pradesh government and police were handling the probe into the incident.On October 7, the Court sought a status report from the Uttar Pradesh government on the FIR registered and arrests made in connection with the incident.On October 26, the Court had asked the State to ensure protection to witnesses. When the matter was taken up today, the Court noted that three FIRs have been registered, one regarding death of farmers and other regarding deaths of political leaders due to retaliatory violence and third one on death of a journalist. The Supreme Court said that the probe in the three FIRs has to be independent of each other and evidence in one cannot be used to protect accused in another incident."Now it is being said that there are two FIRs and the evidence collected in one FIR will be used in another. Evidence in FIR no.220 is being collected in a way to protect one accused," the Bench said."One set of murder is of the farmers, one set is of journalists and one is of political workers. In the set of political workers, the accused themselves have died. So now witness comes in the third set and gives accused favouring statement in first case of farmers death," Justice Kant remarked.The judge made it clear that both exercises have to be independent."What we expect from SIT is those coming to depose in the case of farmers death, this will be an independent exercise and the evidence you are collecting in the other case cannot be used in this," he said.He also went on to state that the SIT the impression was that the SIT is not able to investigate the three FIRs without interlinking them."What it appears to us is that this SIT is unable to maintain an investigative distance between the three FIRs," Justice Kant further said.The Bench, therefore, deemed it appropriate that the probe should be overseen by a retired High Court judge from a different State."There are political overtones to it," said Salve."We don't want any tones. You find out from the state and we can appoint a former judge. We will take this up on Friday," CJI Ramana said.