The case has been filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) after Ritesh Kumar was reportedly killed in a police encounter on April 13, 2025, in Hubballi.
Karnataka: Today, 28th April: The Karnataka High Court is currently hearing an important public interest case concerning the death of a migrant worker from Bihar, Ritesh Kumar.
The case has been filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) after Ritesh Kumar was reportedly killed in a police encounter on April 13, 2025, in Hubballi.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, who appeared on behalf of PUCL, informed the High Court that the directions of the Supreme Court had been “followed only partly.” He pointed out that an FIR (First Information Report) regarding the encounter had not been filed properly.
Instead, “an FIR has been wrongly filed against the people who died,” he said.
Hearing this, the High Court asked, “Are you saying there should be a proper complainant?”
To this, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi replied, “Yes, My Lords, a police officer must be the complainant. An FIR cannot be filed against the dead persons.”
He further referred to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra (2014).
As per that decision, “a full investigation by a magistrate requires the registration of an FIR.” Sondhi said that in this case, the state had wrongly filed a case against the deceased by claiming that “they stopped the police.”
In defence, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty told the court that “the FIR was filed on April 13, right after the encounter.” However, he admitted that “the FIR does not mention death but talks about the deceased firing back at the police.”
The High Court then asked, “What are the next steps after the FIR inquiry?”
Responding, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi explained, “The inquiry will focus on the encounter, not on the deceased.”
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty agreed with this, saying, “I agree with this suggestion.”
The High Court also told Sondhi that it would “include the possibility of an encounter in the investigation.”
Sondhi, however, argued strongly that the state had wrongly limited the FIR by choosing only selective sections of law. He requested that the investigation not be restricted.
In response, the Advocate General said, “Whether the encounter was real or fake will be decided by the magistrate after an inquiry.”
The High Court announced that it would issue a detailed order the next day, stating, “a detailed order will be given tomorrow, and the case will be closed then.“
Senior Advocate Sondhi also made an important request to the court.
He said, “I request that a former High Court judge conduct the inquiry or that the investigation be handed over to an independent agency.”
Replying to this, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty said, “The CID is currently investigating the matter, and we have assigned it to an independent agency, not the local police.”
The court noted that “if needed, they can later ask to have the investigation transferred,” to which the Advocate General responded, “Yes, Your Honors.”
On April 15, 2025, the High Court issued a detailed order. Following the order, the State government submitted an affidavit and requested that the FIR be made part of the case record.
As the FIR was in the local language, the court ordered that “a translated version in English needs to be added.”
Senior Advocate Sondhi raised a serious concern. He argued that “the FIR lacks necessary details, particularly the identification of police officers as the accused in the alleged encounter.” He also asked the court to direct the police to provide the post-mortem report.
However, the High Court ruled that “the court does not find the last request relevant.”
The Advocate General requested permission for the burial of the deceased Ritesh Kumar.
The court allowed it, stating, “there is no restriction on burying it at this time. The authorities are allowed to bury the body.”
Sondhi also repeated his request to shift the investigation to an independent agency. The High Court said that it would make a final decision regarding the investigation on “2nd May, Friday.”
