Lakhimpur Kheri case: Apex Court recommends ex-HC judge for monitoring of UP SIT probe

NEW DELHI, Nov 8 (HS): The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of the Uttar Pradesh police inquiry into the Lakhimpur Kheri case on Monday and recommended that SIT investigations be overseen by a retired high court judge. The top court panel, led by CJI NV Ramana and comprised of justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, said no to the CBI investigation into the incident “CBI is not the panacea for all ills. We want a retired HC Judge to oversee the investigation and the filing of separate chargesheets. We want to safeguard the evidence that has been gathered,” they said. According to the Supreme Court, both incidents – the mowing down of protesting farmers by a car and the lynching of the accused – must be examined and brought to a logical end.

The Supreme Court was hearing a case relating to the October 3 incident in which eight individuals, including four farmers, were killed in a farmers’ protest due to violence.

The Supreme Court stated that it is not confident in the way the evidence is being documented by the UP SIT.

A bench led by Chief Justice N V Ramana chastised the UP police, saying that the ‘speed of the investigation is not up to expectation.’ The Supreme Court asked the UP police why the mobile phones of all of the accused in the case had not yet been seized, with the exception of the chief accused, Ashish Mishra. “Did the other accused not use cell phones?” the Supreme Court inquired.

The court noted that according to UP police, there were 16 accused in the farmer mowing down event, three of them were lynched. “Why have you grabbed one of the accused’s phones? Where have you stated in a status report that the remainder of the accused threw away their cellphones yet the police collected their CDRs? “It inquired. The apex court stated that the prima facie view it has is that one particular accused is benefiting from the recording of witness testimony in a specific manner. “What will happen to the investigation?” it wondered.

According to Justice Kant, “it appears to us that the SIT is unable to maintain the investigation distance between the FIRs (one in which farmers were mowed down by a car and the other accused was killed)…important to ensure evidence in 219 and 220 (FIRs) documented independently.” The Supreme Court stated that the status report has no information other than the fact that more witnesses have been interviewed. The Chief Justice informed senior lawyer Harish Salve, who was representing the Uttar Pradesh government, at the outset, “The status report contains nothing. We allowed 10 days…lab reports have not progressed so far. It (the investigation into the incident) is not progressing as planned.”

It also noted the delay in obtaining the forensic reports on the video evidence. Senior attorney Harish Salve, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, informed the court that lab tests would be available by November 15. The bench stated that it does not have the confidence in the procedure used by the Uttar Pradesh SIT to record evidence and that “we are inclined to appoint a judge from a different high court to monitor day-to-day investigation…until the charge sheet is filed.”

The Supreme Court declined to order a CBI investigation into the incident, stating that the CBI is not a panacea.

The Supreme Court stated that it is aiming to instil some fairness, independence, and faith in the Lakhimpur Kheri probe. The Supreme Court has asked the UP government whether it will appoint former Punjab and Haryana high court Justice Ranjit Singh to oversee the SIT’s inquiry into the killings of four farmers, the death of a journalist, and the lynching of three defendants in the incident. The bench requested a response from the Uttar Pradesh government about the appointment of an impartial judge to oversee the probe till the charge sheet is filed, and scheduled the matter for further hearing on Friday.

The top court was hearing the Lakhimpur Kheri case after two lawyers wrote to the CJI requesting a high-level judicial inquiry into the incident, which would also involve the CBI.