December 23, 2025 02:05 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Bangladesh on edge: Student leader shot as pre-poll violence deepens after Hadi killing | Historic deal sealed: India, New Zealand sign landmark Free Trade Agreement in record time | Supreme court snubs urgent plea to stop PMO’s chadar offering at Ajmer Sharif | Emergency landing drama: Air India flight heads back to Delhi after engine malfunction! | PM Modi slams ‘cut and commission’ TMC in virtual Taherpur address | US launches Operation Hawkeye Strike in Syria targeting ISIS after Americans killed | Horror on tracks: Rajdhani Express ploughs into elephant herd, eight killed in Assam | Horror in Bangladesh: Hindu man lynched and set on fire amid violent protests | Bangladesh in flames: Student leader Sharif Osman Hadi's death triggers massive protests, media offices torched | Chaos in Dhaka! Protesters assault New Age Editor, burn down newspaper offices amid deadly unrest
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.