June 14, 2026 10:56 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Tragedy in the skies: Five IAF personnel killed in AN-32 crash in Assam | 'Ask probe officers whether I hid anything': Abhishek Banerjee hits back after pre-dawn police search | Police storm Abhishek Banerjee's house at 3 am tracking aide, Mamata arrives; seizure list says 'NIL' | Big boost for India's security: DRDO successfully tests advanced missile shield | Indian-origin man jailed for 34 years in UK over horrific kidnap, torture and rape case | Mamata's nightmare deepens! Saayoni Ghosh, Dev, Rachana Banerjee among 19 rebel MPs seeking TMC split | Trump claims US 'ended war with Iran', Tehran yet to confirm a deal | Heartbreak for Indian sports: Manu Bhaker's mentor Jaspal Rana passes away at 49 | Three Indian seafarers, missing after US strike on tanker near Oman, confirmed dead | 'Choose your side': TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee's ultimatum to Mamata in open revolt against Abhishek
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.