TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

1992-93 Mumbai riots: Supreme Court refuses to reopen discharge/acquittal of nine erring police officials

Satya Prakash New Delhi, November 5 The Supreme Court has refused to reopen the cases of discharge and acquittal of nine erring police officials in connection with the 1992-93 Mumbai riots which claimed around 900 lives, saying it’s too late to...
Advertisement

Satya Prakash

Advertisement

New Delhi, November 5

Advertisement

The Supreme Court has refused to reopen the cases of discharge and acquittal of nine erring police officials in connection with the 1992-93 Mumbai riots which claimed around 900 lives, saying it’s too late to examine such cases.

“In the case of six police officials, orders of acquittal were passed on 18th November 2005, and one officer was acquitted by an order dated 9th September 2014. These orders of acquittal were not challenged. Out of nine police officials, seven have already been superannuated. The State Government has not stated the reasons for not questioning the orders of acquittal. The State should have been vigilant and proactive in these cases. Now it is too late in the day to direct the State to examine whether the orders of acquittal deserve to be challenged,” a three-judge Bench led by Justice SK Kaul said.

In terms of the recommendations of Justice Srikrishna Commission, FIRs were

Advertisement

registered against nine police officials. Two of them were discharged and seven were acquitted. The complainants/victims filed revision applications against orders of discharge dated 16th April 2003 of two officials. The revision applications were dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed special leave petitions on 4th July 2011, the Bench noted.

The top court set up a committee headed by Secretary of Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to look into records relating to 108 people, who went missing during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots that broke out in the wake of demolition of Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, and directed the Maharashtra government to make all possible efforts to trace their family members or legal heirs.

On Friday, it directed the state government to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakh each to the legal heirs of the missing persons, traced out hereafter, with percent interest per annum from January 22, 1999 till actual payment.

The order came on a petition filed by one Shakeel Ahmad seeking implementation of Justice Srikrishna Commission report that probed the 1992-93 Mumbai riots in which about 900 people died, 168 went missing and about 2036 persons suffered injuries.

The Bench also refused to reopen the disciplinary proceedings against erring police officials. “In view of the long passage of time, as far as the disciplinary action is concerned, now in the year 2022, it will be inappropriate to go into the question of the validity of the orders passed by the disciplinary authorities and the adequacy of the penalties imposed,” the Bench stated.

One official was dismissed from service while another one was made to compulsorily retire. On nine other police officials, minor penalties had been imposed. Out of them eight had already retired from service. Eight others were exonerated. Out of them, five officials have since retired while an inquiry against one police official was dropped following his death during the pendency of the inquiry, the court said.

The Bench – which indicted the state government and the police for their failure to protect citizen’s lives during the riots – said forcing citizens to live in communal tension affected their right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

 

Advertisement
Tags :
MumbaiSupremeCourt
Show comments
Advertisement