The Allahabad High Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government if it was “fair and reasonable” to allow the District Magistrate (DM) of Hathras to continue in his post during the pendency of the investigation in the Hathras rape and illegal cremation case in which he was in “the thick of things.”
Also read: Ground Zero | A long caste feud, a horrific crime, and a sudden cremation
A Lucknow Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Pankaj Mithal said, “...when he [Hathras DM Praveen Kumar Laxkar] was in the thick of things... would it not be appropriate to shift him elsewhere during pendency of these proceedings without there being any stigma attached to such an action only to ensure fairness and transparency in the matter.”
The court on October 12 said it was not satisfied with the explanation of the Uttar Pradesh government on why it had taken action against the district police chief of Hathras but not the DM over the alleged rape incident and the hurried cremation of the victim, even though it was admittedly a “collective decision”.
On November 2, government counsel S.V. Raju assured the court that he would convey it (question of transferring the DM) to the government and come back with a reply on the next date of hearing, November 25.
Suspended SP appears in court
Meanwhile, Vikrant Vir, the suspended SP of Hathras, appeared before the court and submitted his version and filed an affidavit. It was the DM and he (Mr. Vir) who had taken the decision to cremate the victim’s body in the night, Mr. Vir said.
The court also asked the Central Bureau of Investigation to file a status report with regard to the ongoing investigation before the next date and also indicate approximately how much time would likely be taken to complete the probe.
Family’s plea
Seema Kushwaha, counsel appearing for the victim’s family, submitted that the family wanted to be shifted from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi as it was apprehensive about its safety once the court proceedings were over. Ms. Kushwaha also apprised the court about an alleged promise made by the State government to provide employment to one member of the victim’s family which had not been fulfilled as yet.
She also stated that although a part of compensation had been received by the family, some pressure was being exerted for returning it in view of an alleged statement made by some family members that they did not want it.
Ms. Kushwaha referred to a letter of the DM but could not place it on record.
The government advocate, however, refuted her contention and stated that there was no such move at all.
The Bench also directed that a responsible officer of the Central Reserve Police Force file an affidavit indicating the nature of security provided and measures taken in this regard for the victim’s family before the next date.
