April 14, 2026 01:08 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'ECI deviated from Bihar procedure': Supreme Court raises concerns over voter deletion in Bengal SIR | Noida workers’ protest turns violent: Stones pelted, vehicles damaged over wage hike demand | Oil prices jump above $103 a barrel as US moves to block Iran-linked shipping | I don’t care if they come back or not, says Trump after Iran talks collapse | Legendary singer Asha Bhosle suffers cardiac arrest, hospitalised | Big boost to India–Mauritius ties: S. Jaishankar hands over 90 e-buses | Middle East tension: Iranian delegation arrives in Islamabad for major talks, 10,000 security personnel deployed | Ranveer Singh visits RSS HQ amid Dhurandhar 2 success, triggers speculation | ED raids ex-Bengal minister Partha Chatterjee; SSC scam resurfaces ahead of polls | Amit Shah promises UCC, ₹3,000 aid per month for women and youth in BJP’s Bengal manifesto
VikasGuptaEncounterCase

Vikas encounter case: SC reserves order in plea seeking removal of inquiry commission

| @indiablooms | Aug 11, 2020, at 10:53 pm

New Delhi/UNI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rapped a lawyer for questioning sanctity of Inquiry Commission headed by Justice B S Chauhan, formed by the Uttar Pradesh government to probe gangster Vikas Dubey encounter case and reserved the decision.

The bench headed by Chief Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments of the petitioner Ghanshyam Upadhyay and the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government.

Mr. Upadhyay, quoting a media report, questioned the loyalty of former Supreme Court judge BS Chauhan on the grounds that two relatives of Justice Chauhan are leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

During the hearing, Mr. Mehta said that the petitioner's arguments against Justice Chauhan contained derogatory material.

The Chief Justice also said that the bench cannot accept aspersion on a former Apex Court judge on the basis of a newspaper report.

"There are judges whose relatives are in Parliament. Are they not fair? There are judges whose father is an MP. They are not fair judges? Is belonging to a political party an illegal act?" the bench asked the petitioner.

However, the top court asked the counsel to give suggestions in writings and reserved its order.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.