Today(18th Sept), The Calcutta High Court, led by Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, has removed RG Kar petitions from its list, noting that many issues are currently pending before the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice suggested deferring the matters until the Supreme Court delivers its rulings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: Today(18th Sept), The Calcutta High Court involved in a series of petitions concerning the RG Kar incident, with the Chief Justice (CJ) of the High Court, T.S. Sivagnanam, presiding over the proceedings. Many of the matters related to the case are currently pending before the Supreme Court, as highlighted by the CJ in the hearings.
“These matters are currently pending before the Supreme Court, so let’s remove them from the list for now,”
– stated CJ Sivagnanam.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate (Sr. Adv.) Mahesh Jethmalani raised an important issue not yet addressed by the Supreme Court—
“the circulation of the victim’s pictures and the comments associated with them.”
He further pointed out that the victim’s name was disclosed by none other than the then-police commissioner, Vineet Goyal. In response to this, Sr. Adv. Menaka Guruswamy, who is representing the former police commissioner, stated that-
“The issue of her name being disclosed is currently before the Supreme Court, and the police commissioner has been transferred. At this point, these submissions are unjust.”
However, Jethmalani countered by emphasizing that the matter of revealing the victim’s name during a press conference remains unresolved and is not part of any ongoing Supreme Court case.
“The matter of him revealing her name at a press conference isn’t addressed in any ongoing case,”
-he stated.
Following this, it was mentioned that the police commissioner, despite the controversy, had been promoted to a higher position.
Jethmalani further argued that the High Court has the authority to step in, file an FIR, and oversee the investigation regarding the circulation of the victim’s name and picture.
“This court can file an FIR and oversee the investigation regarding the circulation of her name and picture,”
– he suggested.
On the other hand, Guruswamy contended that since the matter of the name disclosure is already under the purview of the Supreme Court, further submissions before the High Court were unjust at this stage.
Nevertheless, CJ Sivagnanam concluded that –
“the Supreme Court is currently handling these matters, so they should be removed from the list with the option to mention them later.”
In a notable development, CJ Sivagnanam acknowledged that they had received a report from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
“We have received the CBI’s report, which will be seen on the next date,”
-he announced, confirming that all related petitions would be taken off the list temporarily but with the option for them to be brought back up for discussion at a later time.
Jethmalani made another important point during the hearing, requesting clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the scope of its involvement.
He noted-
“We will seek clarification from the Supreme Court regarding what is currently under consideration. If they indicate that the prosecution of the individual who disclosed her name is not part of the case, we will then approach the High Court.”
The CJ also pointed out recent media reports highlighting an order from the Supreme Court that instructed Wikipedia to remove the victim’s name from its platform.
“We noticed in the newspaper reports that the Supreme Court instructed Wikipedia to remove the victim’s name from their page,”
-the CJ remarked.
In response to this, Guruswamy assured the court that they would bring the Supreme Court’s order to the High Court’s attention during the next hearing.
“We will bring that order to the court’s attention,”
-she affirmed.
CJ Sivagnanam confirmed that the High Court would revisit the case following the next CBI report.
“We will see the CBI’s report at the next hearing,”
– he concluded, indicating the next steps for the petitions.
