August 03, 2026 02:51 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Kulgam terror attack turns deadlier: Second Chhattisgarh worker succumbs to bullet injuries | 'I'm ashamed': Girl who abused PM Modi during NEET protests issues apology | 'Abuses never solve anything': PM Modi urges forgiveness after Jantar Mantar protest slogans | 'Country wanted an apology, PM forgave it': Congress' sharp swipe at Modi's video over 'abuse' row | Bengal STF arrests JeM suspect from Burdwan; probe underway into 'plot' targeting CM Suvendu Adhikari | 'My father was almost lynched': Families of Delhi cops assaulted during NEET protests share chilling accounts | Nine killed after 'dangerous' building collapses in Maharashtra | Shehzad Poonawalla quits BJP, drops party name from X bio—big political twist | Meta India head Arun Srinivas booked over alleged anti-Modi posts during NEET protests | 'I received threats to join BJP': CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke's explosive allegation sparks fresh political row
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.