Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Imposition Of President's Rule In Uttar Pradesh

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• UP being the most 'unsafe' state of the country
• More than 30% of crime rate the country is concentrated in UP
• Several cases where government was seemingly 'ignorant'
• SC’s irregular reply on the matter. Should SC concentrate on the past while hampering the justice of the present? 

INTRODUCTION

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court suggesting an imposition of President Rule, Article 356, in the state of Uttar Pradesh pertaining to the increased number of crime rate to 'save the lives of 20 crore citizens'. As absurd this may sound, the petition was dismissed and the Court reprimanded the advocate, saying 'the Court will impose heavy costs if he (C.R. Jayasukin) further argued in this case.' 

Click here to enroll masterclass on - The IBC - Theory, and Practice by Adv. Amrita Kharkar

FURTHER DETAILS

The petitioner alleged that under the present government there were increased number of crime rates against women, according to a report from NCRB. In 2019, India had reported 4,05,861 cases and of these UP had 59,853 such cases.

The Court asked the advocate the basis of such claims 'How many states have you studied crime records of? And on what basis. There is no research about what you are saying. How is your fundamental right getting affected?' CJI S.A. Bobde asked.

In the official petition, it was alleged by Mr. Jayasukin that a number of crimes were at an all time high, crimes that included, unlawful and arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings perpetrated by police, torture by prison officials, arbitrary arrest and detention by government authorities, restriction on freedom of expression, unjustified arrests or prosecution among journalists, these and several other heinous acts.

Moreover, the petitioner while stating UP to be the most unsafe state in the country, had stated a few facts of serious crimes that were concluded without any legitimate answer:

• Hathras Gang Rape Incident: A 19-year-old was raped by four men on September 14, the woman belonged to a Dalit Community and was found in front of the house being sickening manner in the heartland of Uttar Pradesh, Hathras. The woman succumbed to her grave injuries, while the autopsy reports had a lot of loopholes in it, the family asked the authorities to hand over the body in order to perform her last rites, but seemingly she was cremated in a very mysterious way, where the family was locked up in their own house and the police formed a human chain to avoid any type of trespass by any other official, while the family is still shocked by the incident, the government is seemingly still ignorant about it.
• The petitioner also stated a bizarre statement 'According to the annual report of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), released on January 2020, a case of rape is registered with the Uttar Pradesh police every two hours while crime against a child is reported every 90 minutes in the state.'
• A number of statistical data was cited which included' There were reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings of suspected criminals and insurgents. On February 6, minister of state for home affairs Hansraj Gangaram Ahir presented in the upper house of parliament data from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), noting that 22 alleged 'fake encounters' with police occurred between January 2018 and January 20, 2019. Ahir stated that 17 of these alleged encounters occurred in the state of Uttar Pradesh. That the Petitioner state that, On January 19, four UN human rights experts expressed concern about allegations of at least 59 extrajudicial killings by police in Uttar Pradesh since 2017. The experts sent 'detailed information' to the government on 15 of the cases, most deaths involving individuals from Muslim communities
• Unnao Rape Case: On 28^th July, a rape victim was subjected to a head-on road collision. It was a fact that the survivor had accused the lawmaker, Kuldeep Senger back in 2017. Furthermore, it has been stated that Senger was removed from BJP after facing such accusation. The girl alleged that Senger's brother threatened her father after which the latter succumbed under Police Custody and that the road accident was planned to kill her. The girl had also exercised self-immolation in front of CM Yogi’s house for a significant period in order to protest for delay in arrest of the accused.
• It was also stated that there were several sex-trafficking cases in government-funded shelter homes. It was alleged that in few cases government authorities were also involved and that the victims were sexual exploited by such authorities. Multiple letters were sent to the government to cease sending vulnerable girls and women to the shelter, despite that, three police superintendents sent around 405 girls to such shelters over a span of two years.
• Protection of Muslim was also in danger, after the passing of the Triple Talaq bill, there were several cases where the women are still awaiting for justice, citing an example, the petitioner stated '…on 2019 August 19, a 22-year-old woman in Shravasti District of Uttar Pradesh was burned alive by her husband and in-laws for approaching police after the man gave the woman 'triple talaq.' Criminal charges were filed against the family on August 22, police abounded the matter and did not taking any investigations…'

And several other relevant accusations which were alleged to be 'ignored' by the state government.

WHY DID SC REJECT THIS PLEA?

Though it is not explicitly clear why the Supreme Court dismissed the plea, since the conversation that took place on this case very minimalistic. The conversation went as following:

"Lot of extra-judicial killings, arbitrary killings taking place in UP. But till date, Union Govt has not given any advice", stated C R Jaya Sukin.

• CJI Bobde: 'Have you studied the crime records of other states?'
• C.R. Jayasukin: 'Of total number of crimes in India, more than 30% are in UP'
• CJI Bobde : 'How is your fundamental right affected?'
• C.R. Jayasukin: 'I am an Indian Citizen'
• CJI Bobde: 'We will impose heavy costs if you argue any further. Dismissed.' 

CONCLUSION

Though after a thorough reading of the case, it is hard to make out the difference between the right and the wrong, while the facts could be true, the nature of SC on this issue seems unlikely. Imposition of Presidential Rule was in fact an improper idea since it would create a lot of chaos within the political system, a discussion within the ambit of officials could be arranged. While the SC decides about the past, there are already a bunch of cases that needs to be dealt with in the present scenario. What is the real judgement to this issue? The answer lies within the eyes of the viewer.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgment