The Supreme Court will on Monday hear the plea filed by Advocate Ehtesham Hashmi seeking an independent probe into the alleged communal violence in Tripura during civic polls last year.
Recently, the Tripura government had opposed the plea stating in its affidavit that the petition is based on the report compiled by the petitioner himself and three other Advocates as a member of Lawyers for Democracy (sponsored by NCHRO, CFD & PUCL, Delhi), titled Humanity Under Attack in Tripura #MUSLIMLIVESMATTER. “The same is unilateral, exaggerated and distorted version of incidents in the Respondent-State and has no veracity in the eyes of law,” said the affidavit.
The present plea was filed by Advocate Ehtesham Hashmi, who contended that he had personally visited riot-affected areas of the state, along with other Delhi-based advocates and published a fact-finding report about the visit.
In its affidavit filed before the apex court, the Tripura government said that a series of violent incidents had shaken West Bengal before and after the State assembly elections, which was “larger in magnitude” compared to Tripura violence, but the public interest of the petitioner was aroused only selectively during the latter.
“No individuals or group of individuals professionally functioning as public-spirited persons can selectively invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court to achieve some apparent, but undisclosed motive,” the affidavit said.
The petitioner has sought independent investigation into the alleged incidents of violence against Muslims based on the fact-finding report; compliance with the guidelines laid down in paragraph 40 in Tehseen Poonawala Vs Union of India (2018)9 SCC 501) and directions defining Contours of “duty of care in investigations” or tort of negligent investigations resulting in harm.
The following findings were inter alia published in the report:
a) 12 mosques were damaged;
b) 9 shops owned by Muslim businessmen were damaged; and
c) 3 houses owned by Muslims were vandalised.
The above findings were arrived at by the petitioner after meeting with families and persons who were at the receiving end of the vandalism, the plea said.
However, Hashmi said in his petition that instead of taking action against the miscreants and rioters, police took action against those, who spoke against the same.
It was also submitted that two of the Delhi advocates, who were part of a fact-finding team, were sent notices under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that their social media posts promoted enmity between communities.
Further, it was also put to the Bench that police had invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against 102 persons, including journalists, for reporting and writing on violence.
The state government has rebutted Hashmi’s petition, contending that allegations against the state started with planted and pre-planned articles in tabloids.
“Planted and pre-planned articles started emerging in few tabloids, which becomes the basis of such a PIL subsequently or the so-called public spirited persons send their own teams to generate a self-serving report. Such reports, so generated, thereafter becomes the cause of action, as well as material based upon which the petitions are filed,” the state affidavit said.
It further alleged that the fact-finding report was based on incorrect facts, aimed towards creating disaffection between communities and the state in particular.
The state also pointed out that a suo motu case concerning the same subject was already pending before the Tripura High Court and that the petitioner should have approached the High Court first, instead of moving the Supreme Court.
Case Name- Ehtesham Hashmi Vs Union of India & Ors.