Manipur Encounter Killings: SC reserves verdict in plea seeking recusal of Lokur & Lalit JJ

The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict in the application filed by members of the Indian Army seeking the recusal of Justices Madan Lokur and UU Lalit from the case concerning extra-judicial killings in Manipur..This application for recusal was heard by the same Bench of Justices Lokur and Lalit, which is also hearing the main matter..Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the applicants, submitted that the remarks passed by the Bench during one of the hearings were prejudicial to the investigation and affected the morale of the Armed Forces..The remarks referred to by Rohatgi were made when the Court questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over the fact that no arrests were made despite the filing of four charge sheets indicting 14 persons..Today, Justice Lalit apprised Rohatgi of what transpired in the Courtroom the day the remarks in question were made, since Rohatgi was not present on the said day..“Essentially what happened was comments were made in passing and not directed at any specific individuals. We (Court) will pass order that what happened was not on merits and only in passing“, said Justice Lalit..“We will make it clear that it was not intended...”, Justice Lokur added..Attorney General KK Venugopal told the Court that the Centre supports the Armed Forces, who face difficult situations in areas like Manipur and have to adopt various methods..“There is reasonable doubt in the minds of those under investigation and they think they are doomed. The morale of those fighting insurgency is hit. Lives of people are involved.”.Venugopal added that the remarks in question have the potential to seriously affect the trial, since the Trial Court judges may not wish to go against the observations made by the highest court of the country..“At this stage they are innocent and can’t be branded as criminals. This is not what we think but this is what they (accused) think because they face death since punishment for murder is death.”.Venugopal supported the prayer for a different Bench to hear the case and monitor the CBI investigation..Justice Lokur pointed out that the Court, at this stage, is only monitoring the CBI probe..“Are you suggesting that another Bench should monitor the investigation? The only question is of monitoring the investigation… Are you suggesting the CBI will not investigate fairly?“.Senior Counsel Colin Gonsalves submitted before the Court that there was no need for recusal since the reports in the media were accurate and quoted the Bench correctly. He highlighted that the Court did not express an opinion on the accused, but merely questioned the CBI on the fact that no arrests were made..“The Bench had said ‘if according to CBI chargesheet they are murderers, then why are they not arrested?’… The role of the AG is not to go with those who have sensationalized but the role of the AG is to stand by the Court.”.Amicus Curiae in the case, Menaka Guruswamy also weighed in, saying,.“Court said ‘according to you’. This hypothetical is being used to allege bias. They are using this alleged statement to re-agitate and re-argue their case which should not be allowed. The heart of this petition is to use this as the backdoor to re-argue the case.”.Rohatgi countered this submission by saying that the Court’s observations create apprehensions in the minds of those who are accused..“Those people are not rogues, they don’t have antecedents. If such statements are made then there are apprehensions… The immediate question here is whether this Bench should continue to hear the matter.”.Justice Lalit told Rohatgi that this Bench has been hearing the case from the beginning..“As a Counsel, you should be aware of this. We have picked up some cases from a basket of cases where it was found that encounters were not genuine..After completion of CBI investigation, four chargesheets were filed. We did not ask why they filed… We have gone by their assessment. If the assessment shows there is an offence under sections 302 and 201 and yet there were no arrests. It was on that line that the observation was made and was not intended to give any bias.”.After this prolonged, heated hearing, the Court proceeded to reserve its verdict on the question of recusal of the Bench from the case.