Wrestlers Protest: Expert opinion on Supreme Court decision to close hearing

Add as a preferred source on Google

Wrestlers' Protest on Thursday (May 4) took an interesting turn as the Supreme Court decided to close its proceedings on the petition filed by the wrestlers against WFI president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh over sexual harassment charges.

The apex legislative body, who heard an urgent plea on the day after a melee broke out between the wrestlers and Delhi Police on Wednesday night, ruled that it's closing the proceeding on the petition after learning that FIR has been filed against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

The Supreme Court, benched by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, further directed the petitioners to file their further pleas in the lower courts (Delhi High Court). The wrestlers protesting at Jantar Mantar accepted the SC's verdict and vowed to continue their protest.

However, there's still confusion among the masses if the verdict was in favour of the wrestlers or if it benefitted the "man in power" Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh (BJP's incumbent MP from UP's Kaiserganj), who has been eluding arrest despite facing charges of sexual assault against a minor.

Mykhel spoke to Supreme Court lawyer Malak Bhatt, who gave his expert opinion on the bench's decision to close the hearing on the petition filed by the wrestlers. Bhatt explained that the Supreme Court hearing followed its due course as the petition filed by the wrestlers was against Delhi Police violating Supreme Court's mandate by not filing an FIR against the accused.

"The petition was for the purpose of seeking a fair investigation into the allegations made," said Bhatt. "It said that despite various complaints lodged with the police, the police were not acting in line with the judgement made in Lalita Kumari vs Government of UP case, which says there's a mandate on police to register an FIR the moment they are informed of a cognisable offence.

"That was the ground that Mr Kapil Sibal (legal representative of the wrestlers) made during the mentioning day. Following this, the statement that has been put forth now by the government that a preliminary enquiry on the matter has been conducted and two FIRs have already been registered.

"One is under POCSO act with respect to sexual assault on a minor and the other is under IPC offences with respect to sexual assault on adult wrestlers."

Bajrang Punia and other protesting wrestlers have often said that there's a lack of faith in police personnel as they have delayed the investigation by not filing FIR early against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

They demanded a Court-monitored probe into the matter instead while mentioning that they will present the evidence to the legislative body instead to the cops, with whom the wrestlers' relationship turned sour following Wednesday night's scuffle.

Bhatt, however, said the Supreme Court was never going to undermine the police's authority to investigate by ordering a court-monitored probe. He further added that there's a provision in the law for the petitioner to approach the court under the Criminal Procedure Code if they feel the investigation is not done properly.

"The Supreme Court has taken cognisance of the fact that the investigation will take place in an ongoing manner. The bench was right with the decision not to monitor the investigation as it also scuttles the power of the investigation authorities.

"However, in the later stages, if the investigation is not going on the right track, you have remedies under the CrPC before the appropriate forums but Supreme Court in an Article 32 petition wouldn't have considered it."