Supreme Court Directs CBI Probe and CRPF Security in Hathras Case: Satyama Dubey & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (27 October 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 27 October 2020

Citation: Satyama Dubey & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2020)

Judges: S. A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can the Supreme Court intervene in a case where a High Court is already seized of the matter? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the alleged gang rape and murder of a 19-year-old girl in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh. The core issue was ensuring a fair investigation and providing adequate protection to the victim’s family and witnesses. The bench, comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

A 19-year-old girl from Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, was allegedly brutally gang-raped and assaulted. She was later shifted to Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi, where she succumbed to her injuries. The victim was cremated in the middle of the night, allegedly without the presence of her family members. This incident sparked widespread outrage and led to multiple petitions being filed in the Supreme Court seeking a fair investigation and protection for the victim’s family.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, had already taken cognizance of the incident and registered a suo moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on 01.10.2020. The Supreme Court initially hesitated to interfere, recognizing the High Court’s jurisdiction. However, concerns about the safety of the victim’s family and witnesses prompted the Supreme Court to seek an affidavit from the Uttar Pradesh government regarding security measures. The State Government itself had requested a CBI investigation, which was accepted on 10.10.2020, and the CBI began its investigation on 11.10.2020. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court was also monitoring the case.

Legal Framework

The case was primarily considered under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was also relevant, especially concerning the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. The Supreme Court also considered the need for a fair investigation, which is a crucial aspect of criminal law.

Arguments

Petitioners and Intervenors:

• Sought a fair investigation, preferably by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team (SIT), monitored by a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court or High Court.
• Requested the transfer of the case from Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, to Delhi.
• Demanded adequate protection for the victim’s family and witnesses, preferably by central paramilitary forces like the CRPF.
• Some intervenors sought the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 15 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• Some intervenors sought a direction to restrain the respondents from conducting polygraph test, narco-analysis or brain mapping on the victim’s family.
• Some intervenors sought a direction to ensure dignified cremation of all the victims of crime and no discrimination to be made toward SC, ST, OBC.

State of Uttar Pradesh:

• Submitted that it was also interested in a fair investigation and that the offenders be brought to justice.
• Informed the Court that it had already entrusted the investigation to the CBI.
• Provided details of the security arrangements made for the victim’s family, including armed constabulary, civil police, and CCTV cameras.

Accused:

• Through their counsel, contended that the legal rights available to the accused should not be ignored in the process.

Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioners and intervenors innovatively sought the involvement of central agencies like CBI and CRPF, highlighting a lack of trust in the local police. The request for the appointment of a special public prosecutor and the transfer of the case to Delhi also showcased innovative approaches to ensure justice.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the implicit issues addressed by the Court were:

• Whether the investigation should be transferred to the CBI.
• Whether the victim’s family and witnesses should be provided security by the CRPF.
• Whether the case should be transferred to Delhi.
• Whether a Special Public Prosecutor should be appointed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite specific cases or books in the judgment. However, the following legal provisions were considered:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article provides the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This act was relevant for considering the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Article 32 of the Constitution of India* to entertain the writ petitions. The Court also considered the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989* and left it to the High Court to consider the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure a fair investigation and to build confidence in the process. The Court acknowledged the concerns raised by the petitioners and intervenors regarding the local police’s handling of the case. The fact that the State Government had already transferred the investigation to the CBI was a significant factor in the Court’s decision. The Court also emphasized the need to provide adequate protection to the victim’s family and witnesses, which led to the direction for CRPF security. The Court’s decision to leave the issue of transferring the case to Delhi open for future consideration indicates a cautious approach, prioritizing the completion of the investigation before making a decision on the trial’s location.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the submissions made by the petitioners and the State. The Court was of the view that the investigation was already transferred to CBI, and the High Court was already seized of the matter. However, the Court also considered the apprehension of the petitioners regarding the safety of the victim’s family and witnesses. The Court balanced these considerations to come to its decision.

The Court considered the option of monitoring the investigation but decided against it, as the High Court was already monitoring the case. The Court also considered the request for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor but left it to the High Court to decide. The Court did not find it necessary to transfer the case to Delhi at this stage, but left the option open for the future.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The State Government had already transferred the investigation to the CBI.
• The High Court was already seized of the matter and was monitoring the case.
• There was a need to provide adequate protection to the victim’s family and witnesses.
• The issue of transferring the case to Delhi could be considered in the future.
• The appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor could be considered by the High Court.

The Court observed, “the instant petition would not be considered as an adversarial litigation and the respondents are also interested that a fair investigation be conducted and the offenders be brought to book.” The Court also noted, “the investigation has in fact been entrusted by the State Government itself to the CBI on 10.10.2020 and the CBI has started investigation in respect of the crime on 11.10.2020.” Furthermore, the Court stated, “in order to allay all apprehensions and only as a confidence building measure, we find it appropriate to direct that the security to the victim’s family and the witnesses shall be provided by the CRPF within a week from today.”

There was no majority or minority opinion in this case. The judgment was unanimous.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the facts presented, the submissions made by the parties, and the legal provisions applicable. The Court also considered the practical aspects of the case, such as the need for a fair investigation and the safety of the victim’s family and witnesses. The Court’s decision to direct CRPF security was a significant step in ensuring the safety of the victim’s family and witnesses.

The decision could have implications for future cases involving allegations of police misconduct and the need for central agency involvement. The Court’s emphasis on the need for a fair investigation and the protection of witnesses could set a precedent for similar cases.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The Court primarily applied existing legal principles to the facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• The investigation into the Hathras incident was transferred to the CBI.
• The victim’s family and witnesses were provided security by the CRPF.
• The issue of transferring the case to Delhi was kept open for future consideration.
• The High Court was left to consider the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a fair investigation and the protection of witnesses in such cases.

The judgment highlights the importance of central agency involvement in cases where there are allegations of police misconduct or a lack of trust in the local police. The decision to provide CRPF security underscores the Court’s commitment to protecting vulnerable witnesses and their families.

Directions

• The security to the victim’s family and the witnesses shall be provided by the CRPF within a week from the date of the judgment.
• The CBI shall report to the High Court in the manner as would be directed by the High Court through its orders from time to time.
• The Chief Secretary, State of U.P, shall bring the order to the notice of the competent officer of the CRPF forthwith with a request to provide adequate security to the victim’s family and the witnesses.
• The High Court was requested to delete the names and relationship of the family members with the victim being depicted in the face of the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the High Court in PIL(C) No.16150/2020 and also morph the same in the digital records and avoid indication of such contents in future.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in cases where there are serious allegations of police misconduct and a lack of trust in the local police, the Supreme Court can direct the investigation to be transferred to a central agency like the CBI and can also direct central paramilitary forces like the CRPF to provide security to the victim’s family and witnesses. There was no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hathras case aimed to ensure a fair investigation and provide adequate protection to the victim’s family and witnesses. The Court directed the CBI to continue the investigation and the CRPF to provide security, while leaving the issue of transferring the case to Delhi open for future consideration. The judgment highlights the Court’s commitment to upholding justice and protecting vulnerable individuals in cases involving serious allegations of crime and police misconduct.