July 09, 2026 11:22 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Dalal Street bleeds! Sensex tanks over 1,600 points after Trump declares Iran ceasefire 'over' | 'It's over': Trump says on ceasefire with Iran | PM Modi visits 1,000-year-old Prambanan Temple in Indonesia, shares majestic aerial view of the holy site | Baruipur minor rape-murder case: Key accused Pravash Mondal killed in encounter | 'We have been cheated': Egypt coach slams refereeing after Argentina match sparks controversy | From 0-2 to victory! Argentina stage miraculous comeback amid referee drama to crush Egypt's World Cup dream | Amid outrage over Baruipur, another minor girl allegedly raped in West Bengal | Kerala rain fury: 2 dead, 10 feared trapped as massive Wayanad landslide triggers rescue race | Rick Scott revives Bin Laden issue, questions Pakistan's credibility as Iran mediator | Mbappé vs Paraguayan Senator: Ugly World Cup spat spirals into international controversy
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.