July 30, 2026 09:11 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Farmers storm Bhopal! Traffic crippled as protest over MSP intensifies | Supreme Court gives clean chit to Manmohan Singh in coal block scam case two years after death, accepts CBI closure report | Rahul Gandhi's 'student, idiot, andhbhakt' remark sparks uproar in Lok Sabha during anti-paper leak bill debate | Assam flood death toll climbs to 75; Over 3 lakh still affected as relief efforts intensify | 'You are simply useless': Kangana Ranaut hits back at CJP's Saurav Das in fresh Instagram attack | Assam floods: Death toll stays at 68 as over 5.24 lakh continue to battle deluge | 'Probe is meaningless if responsibility isn't fixed': Supreme Court slams Delhi Police over CJP protest crackdown | 'No protester will be left alone': CJP claims Centre shared FIR withdrawal copies after midnight talks | Bihar cop suspended after viral AK-47 firing video during NEET protest crackdown | After Dharmendra Pradhan's exit, 'E20 Janta Party' emerges, demands Nitin Gadkari's resignation over fuel policy
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.