September 18, 2026 05:08 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Married just 17 days ago: Hyderabad engineer mysteriously found dead at US home | ‘We will promote cash’: New UPI charge triggers trader backlash, Opposition protests | Gurugram biker crash: Main accused Kalyan Bainsla sent to police custody for 2 days | ‘Just tax collection’: Ashneer Grover slams new UPI charges above Rs 2,000 | India condemns Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia, warns of threat to Red Sea shipping | Gurugram biker hit by car: Two including main accused arrested after viral road rage video, attempt to murder case filed | Gurugram horror caught on camera: ‘I felt unsafe’—car chases, rams woman biker and flees | BRICS veg menu row: ‘Why shouldn’t we showcase it?’—Harsh Goenka hits back after Rahul Gandhi’s ‘80%’ remark | India-UAE Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in focus: Modi meets Abu Dhabi Crown Prince on BRICS sidelines | Xi Jinping lands in India for BRICS; big Modi meeting set for New Delhi
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.