Today(18th March),Gujarat High Court, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee, asserts no investigative role in PILs, sparked by assault on foreign students at Gujarat University hostel.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Ahmedabad: Today(18th March), The Gujarat High Court, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee, clarified its position against acting as an investigative body, especially in public interest litigations (PILs), prompted by an assault on foreign students at a government hostel in Gujarat University, Ahmedabad.
The incident, which occurred on a quiet Saturday night, saw an unwarranted intrusion by approximately two dozen individuals into the A-block hostel, specifically targeting students from abroad. The assailants allegedly disrupted the students, who were from various countries including Sri Lanka and Tajikistan, as they offered Namaz near the facility block. The confrontation led to the hospitalization of two students due to injuries sustained during the attack.
ALSO READ: “What is happening in Gujarat HC?
The local police speedy respond by filing an FIR against 20-25 unidentified individuals and establishing nine specialized teams to conduct a thorough investigation. Latest reports indicate that five suspects have been arrested in relation to the assault.
Advocate KR Koshti approached the Gujarat High Court, urging it to take Suo motu cognizance of the incident as a matter of public interest litigation. However, the court, maintaining its judicial prudence, declined the request.
Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, representing the division bench, stated:
“Our primary objective is the preservation of justice, however, we cannot assume the role of an investigative body. Mindful of our constitutional mandate, we remain committed to our judicial responsibilities. Although we will consider relevant concerns, this specific case does not align with our jurisdiction.”
She further emphasized that not every incident in the city should escalate to the level of a PIL, underscoring the judiciary’s role as distinct from that of law enforcement.
In addressing advocate Koshti’s concerns regarding perceived deficiencies in the police investigation, especially the alleged omission of critical details in the FIR, Chief Justice Agarwal advised seeking alternative legal remedies rather than expecting the court to assume the role of an investigative entity.
“Do not equate this court with police inspectors. We are not investigative officers,”
-CJ Agarwal firmly asserted, reiterating the judiciary’s distinct role and boundaries.
ALSO READ: Gujarat HC: Police Extortion Turns Protectors into Perpetrators
Despite Koshti’s insistence on the court’s constitutional obligation to oversee matters of public importance, the bench remained resolute in its decision not to directly intervene.
“Thank you for reminding us of our role as constitutional courts, Mr. Counsel. However, we are mindful of our constitutional jurisdiction and understand when to exercise our powers and when not to,”
-Chief Justice Agarwal remarked.
