The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the petitioner Ehtesham Hashmi who was represented by advocate Prashanta Bhusan , seeking probe into recent communal violence in Tripura, to file a rejoinder to the state government’s response, which urged the court to dismiss the plea.
Earlier, responding to a plea seeking probe into Tripura Violence, the State of Tripura has submitted before the Supreme Court that the petitioner claiming to be “public spirited” citizen has chosen to file the petition with regard to some incident in Tripura but kept silent when severe pre-poll and post–poll violence took place in the State of West Bengal.
According to the State of Tripura, the so-called “public spirit” of the petitioners did not move few months back in a larger scale of communal violence and suddenly their “public spirit” aroused due to some instances in a small State like Tripura.
The State of Tripura has made these submissions through an affidavit filed in a writ petition filed seeking Independent investigation into the communal violence in Tripura and into the alleged complicity and inaction of the police.
The petition seeks directions to ensure that an independent, credible and impartial investigation is conducted into the Tripura riots.
Arguing that this is clearly a case of selective outrage under the pretence of public interest and to achieve some undisclosed agenda, the State of Tripura has sought dismissal of the petition with exemplary cost
The State of Tripura has argued that a genuine and bona fide public-spirited citizen would not be selective in his public interest and would not be choosy about rushing before the Supreme Court with regard to one State and keeping quiet with regard to the other.
The State has submitted that the present petition is is based upon such self-serving “report” titled – “Humanity Under Attack in Tripura – # Muslim Lives Matter” which according to the State is a unilateral, exaggerated and distorted version of incidents and has no veracity in the eyes of law
The State has submitted that it craves leave to refer to and rely upon serious cases of violation of human rights in the State of West Bengal as reported everywhere during pre-poll and post-poll violence in West Bengal and call upon the petitioner why their “public spirit” did not move just few months back.
The State has further submitted that the petitioner has admittedly been sponsored by private organisations (NCHRO, CFD & PUCL, Delhi) to embark upon a purported fact finding tour of the State of Tripura followed by a much publicized ‘report’, at a time when the State machinery was involved in making the situation normal at ground level.
The State has argued that the petitioner’s contention of not having personal interest and being driven by public interest is apparently a pretense, and their fact finding report is based on some grossly incorrect facts seemingly with an intention to create disaffection between groups and State in particular.
The State has pointed out that the High Court of Tripura is cognizant of some instances which have taken place and has already taken suo moto cognizance and the matter is pending. Therefore, the State has argued that the present matter, if at all to be entertained should be remanded back to the High Court.
The writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of India against alleged targeting of the Muslim community amid Tripura violence in October this year. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna had on 29th November 2021 issued notice in the matter.
The petition has been filed by Advocate Ehtesham Hashmi through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, seeking an independent and impartial investigation into the riots.
