Will upgrade SIT for Lakhimpur case: UP

‘We have no objection to the court’s recommendation. Your lordships may make that order,’ senior lawyer Harish Salve, appearing for the state government, submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana as soon as the proceedings commenced in the case registered by the top court on its own motion (suo motu).

Salve, however, requested the bench not to disqualify any retired judge from being considered just because they happen to be from Uttar Pradesh.

‘It is not that a judge from this state cannot be appointed. A judge is a judge after all,’ Salve told the bench, which also included justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.

The bench replied that it was open to considering all names but would need a day to speak to the judge concerned before making the appointment. ‘We need one more day’s time because we are considering either Rakesh Jain (of Punjab and Haryana high court) or any other judge. But we need to talk to the concerned judge before we finalise,’ it said.

While fixing the matter to be heard next on Wednesday, the bench also asked Salve to consider inducting some high-ranking and senior police officers in the special investigation team (SIT), which has been investigating the incident.

‘You have to upgrade the SIT. There have to be more high-ranking officers. Most of them are inspector-level officers. , most of them are from Lakhimpur only. Why don’t you give us some names and we can then pass orders?’ it said.

Salve accepted the court’s suggestion, and said he would come back on Wednesday with a list of some senior police officers who could be inducted.

Over the last few hearings, the top court has been critical of the manner in which the state police have so far conducted the investigation in the case where eight people died in that incident on October 3 — four farmers, three Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) workers, and a journalist.

On November 8, the bench pulled up the UP police, commenting that the investigation into the Lakhimpur Kheri incident appears to be favouring the ‘main accused’ in the case.

The remarks continued the trend of the top court’s dissatisfaction with the probe in the case where a convoy, in which at least one vehicle belonged to Union minister Ajay Mishra ‘Teni’, ran over farmers protesting three controversial laws, leading them to run amok and lynch some of the occupants of the vehicles.

Ashish Mishra, the son of the minister, is one of the accused in one of the two cases (the convoy running over farmers) being investigated.

His arrest came only after the bench, on October 9, criticised the lenient treatment he seemed to be receiving from the police in the murder FIR.

The other case being investigated by the police relates to the lynching of some of the occupants of vehicles in the convoy. In the last hearing, the Supreme Court was perturbed that some of the evidence being collected in this case was aimed at protecting the ‘main accused’

The state maintained that it has ‘clinching evidence’ of Mishra’s presence at the scene (something he and his father have consistently denied), but that forensic reports on this are awaited.

The bench had then underscored the need for appointing a retired high court judge from outside the state to monitor the probe after noticing that the investigation in the farmers’ murder case (FIR no. 219) could be adversely impacted by the manner in which the Uttar Pradesh police were recording evidence in the case relating to the murder of three BJP workers (FIR no. 220).

It added that the court does not have confidence in the judicial commission appointed by the UP government.

On October 7, the UP government set up a judicial commission, headed by retired Allahabad high court judge, justice PK Srivastava, to probe the incident.