The Supreme Court on Friday declined to order an investigation by a special investigation team (SIT) into the communal violence incidents in Tripura last year, as the High Court was already seized of a similar matter.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant asked petitioner advocate Ehtesham Hashmi and others to approach the Tripura High Court with a liberty to attend through video conferencing. It also granted Hashmi protection from any coercive action and asked the High Court to dispose of the pending matter expeditiously.
During the hearing advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, said the High Court is only examining issues for compensation, while Hashmi is seeking an impartial SIT probe.
The bench, however, disposed of the matter saying the petitioner can raise all contentions before the High Court.
To this, the bench said, "If the Chief Justice of state High Court is already hearing after taking suo motu cognizance, we should not intervene at this juncture, as it will amount to an expression of no-confidence in the High Court."
Earlier, the BJP-ruled Tripura government had vehemently opposed the petition seeking an investigation by an SIT into the communal incidents of violence in the State, saying the so-called "public-spirited persons" were silent when a "larger scale communal violence" occurred in West Bengal in May 2021 after the State Assembly elections.
The State government through its affidavit has said that the petition seeking a probe by SIT into the alleged violence during polls in Tripura was "selective" in nature and petitioners are setting a dangerous precedent by moving "self-serving PILs" when they kept silent when post-poll violence occurred in TMC-ruled West Bengal.
The affidavit was filed by the Tripura government in the plea of advocate Ehtesham Hashmi who sought the Court's immediate intervention in hate crimes that allegedly took place in October in Tripura.
The affidavit stated that the PIL was entirely on the basis of a so-called fact-finding report authored by the Hashmi with three lawyers, sponsored by the National Confederation of Human Rights Organisations, CFD and People's Union for Civil Liberties.
Seeking independent investigation into the alleged incidents of violence against the Muslim community mentioned in the fact-finding report, co-authored by him, Hashmi approached the top court.
The plea had said that Hashmi had visited riot-affected areas in Tripura along with other Delhi based advocates and published a fact-finding report about the visit. However, instead of taking action against the miscreants and rioters, the police took action against those who spoke against the same, it added.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor