On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said that the gang rape of Hathras and the murder of a Dalit woman was a horrible and extraordinary incident and asked the government of Uttar Pradesh to clarify whether the witnesses in the case are given adequate protection.
A bench of three judges headed by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India (CJI), SA Bobde, asked the Uttar Pradesh government to submit an affidavit clarifying the same and said it will try to ensure a smooth investigation into the incident. “We want to know if the witness protection plan is in place. Please submit an affidavit, ”CJI Bobde told Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who represented the state government.
The court also asked the state to find out whether or not the victim’s family has hired an attorney. In addition, it requested details on the scope of the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court. “We want to broaden the superior court proceedings and make it more relevant,” CJI Bobde said.
Read also | Rahul Gandhi Accuses Prime Minister Modi Of ‘Not Saying A Word’ About Hathras Gang Rape
The court was hearing a petition filed by social activist Satyam Dubey and two lawyers, Vishal Thakre and Rudra Pratap Yadav, seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Special Investigation Team (CBI) into the crime.
Tushar Mehta told the high court that the state government does not oppose CBI’s request for investigation, but requested that it be done under the supervision of the Supreme Court. The state government also opposed the media and political parties that sensationalized the incident. “We are not treating this as adversarial litigation. There are different narratives in the public domain. An innocent life has been lost. It shouldn’t be sensational, ”Mehta said.
Read also | Security of ‘Y-plus’ for the actor, but not for the relatives of the victim of Hathras: Shiv Sena
Lead lawyer Indira Jaising, who represented some lawyers, asked the Supreme Court to guarantee the protection of witnesses. She also pointed out how certain lawyers were trying to secure the brief from the victim’s family and asked the higher court not to allow it.
The court listed the case for an additional hearing next week.
.
