Gujarat encounter killings: Supreme Court to hear State Govt’s objections on sharing Bedi committee report on July 1

The Supreme Court on April 10 said it will hear in detail the Gujarat Government’s objections to sharing a report filed by an apex court-appointed committee led by its former judge, Justice H.S. Bedi, who investigated several police encounters which happened in the State during the chief ministerial era of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Supreme Court on April 10 said it will hear in detail the Gujarat Government’s objections to sharing a report filed by an apex court-appointed committee led by its former judge, Justice H.S. Bedi, who investigated several police encounters which happened in the State during the chief ministerial era of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

A Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul listed the case on July 1 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Gujarat, and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for three Gujarat Police officers allegedly involved in the encounters, objected to the circulation of the copies of the Justice Bedi report to petitioners led by lyricist Javed Akhtar and others representing the late journalist BG Varghese. The petition was filed way back in 2007.

On Monday, Mr. Mehta said this was a “selective PIL” filed by people who were “strangers” to Gujarat. He also questioned the need to implement the report.

The report, submitted confidentially to the apex court in 2018, had investigated 17 police encounters which occurred between 2002 and 2007 in Gujarat. The Justice Bedi committee was constituted by the apex court in 2012.

The committee had reportedly recommended the prosecution of police officers in three out of the 17 cases probed by it. In its final report, Justice Bedi had reportedly said three persons — Sameer Khan, Kasam Jafar and Haji Haji Ismail — were prime facie killed in “fake” encounters.

In January 2019, the apex court refused the State Government’s request to keep the Bedi report under wraps. The court had ordered copies to be shared with the petitioner side and Gujarat.

However, on Monday, advocate Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, said nothing like that had happened so far.