Holding

The Supreme Court declined to supersede the High Court’s supervision of the CBI investigation, directed CRPF protection for the victim’s family and witnesses, and left the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, trial transfer, and other matters to the High Court while ordering the deletion of disclosed family details.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard a batch of writ petitions and intervention applications filed under Article 32 seeking a fair investigation into the gang‑rape and murder of a 19‑year‑old girl in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, and alleging illegal cremation of the victim. The State Government had already ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the probe on 10‑Oct‑2020, and the Allahabad High Court had been monitoring the investigation through a suo motu PIL. The Court held that, since the High Court was already supervising the CBI investigation, it was unnecessary for the Supreme Court to intervene or monitor the case further. However, to allay concerns about security, the Court directed that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) provide protection to the victim’s family and witnesses. The Court left the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and the possible transfer of the trial to Delhi to be decided by the High Court, and it ordered the High Court to delete any disclosure of the victim’s family members’ names in compliance with Section 228A of the IPC. All writ petitions and applications were consequently disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the CBI investigation and whether Supreme Court intervention is required.
Whether the victim’s family and witnesses should be protected by the CRPF instead of the State Police.
The necessity of appointing a Special Public Prosecutor under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The propriety of transferring the trial from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi.
The legality of disclosing the names and relationships of the victim’s family members under IPC s.228A.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 32
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. s.228A
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Subjects

fair investigationCBI investigationvictim protectionCRPF securityspecial public prosecutorSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) ActArticle 32IPC s.228Aillegal cremationtransfer of trial

Judgment

[2020] 9 S.C.R. 517 517

SATYAMA DUBEY & ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 296 of 2020)
OCTOBER 27, 2020 B
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Art. 32 – Writ Petition – Seeking fair investigation in a case C
of brutal gangrape and murder in the State of Uttar Pradesh –
Petitioners alleged that cremation of the victim was illegal – The
State in its affidavit stated that the investigation was entrusted to
CBI by the State – Held: Supreme Court is not required to monitor
the proceedings/ investigation because the High Court having
D
competent jurisdiction has adequately delved into the aspects of
fair investigation – Therefore, all aspects are left open to be
considered by the High Court – Though sufficient steps have been
taken to protect the family of the victim by State Police, however, in
the facts of the case, CRPF is directed to take over the protection of
victim’s family and witnesses – The aspect of appointment of Special E
Public Prosecutor would be considered by the High Court – The
issue as to whether the trial of the case is to be transferred to Delhi
from Uttar Pradesh, is kept open to be considered if need arises in
future.
Penal Code, 1860: F
s. 228A – Disclosure of names and relationship of family
members of rape victim – In the judicial order – Held: is against
law.
Disposing of the Writ Petitions and the intervention
applications, the Court G

HELD: 1.1 The undisputed fact is that the investigation
has in fact been entrusted by the State Government itself to the
CBI on 10.10.2020 and the CBI has started investigation in
respect of the crime on 11.10.2020. Therefore, the apprehensions
H
517
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A expressed by the petitioners/applicants that there would be no
proper investigation if the Uttar Pradesh Police conducted the
same would not remain open for consideration at this stage and
the grievance to that extent stands redressed. [Para 10][527-C-
E]
B 1.2 From the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad
in the PIL, it is noticed that the High Court has adequately delved
into the aspects relating to the case to secure fair investigation
and has also secured the presence of the father, mother, brother
and sister-in-law of the victim and appropriate orders are being
passed, including securing reports from various quarters. In that
C circumstance, it is not necessary to divest the High Court of the
proceedings and take upon this Court to monitor the proceedings/
investigation. That apart, the incident having occurred within the
jurisdiction of that High Court and all particulars being available,
it would be appropriate for the High Court to proceed to monitor
D the investigation in the manner in which it would desire. In that
view, it would be open for the writ petitioners/applicants to seek
to intervene in the matter before the High Court subject to
consideration of such request by the High Court and if it finds
the need to take into consideration the contentions to be urged
by the petitioners/applicants in that regard. [Para 10][527-E-H]
E
1.3 Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the rival contentions, all aspects of the matter are left open to
be considered by the High Court in PIL(C) No.16150/2020
relating to the incident regarding which the investigation is to be
conducted by the CBI and also with regard to the grievance put
F forth alleging illegal cremation. The CBI shall report to the High
Court in the manner as would be directed by the High Court
through its orders from time to time. [Paras 13 and 14][528-E-H]
2.1 Insofar as the protection to the victim’s family and the
witnesses, the affidavit, as filed, no doubt indicates that sufficient
G steps have been taken by the State Government to provide
protection. However, in a matter of the present nature, without
casting any aspersions on the security personnel of the State
Police; in order to allay all apprehensions and only as a confidence

H
SATYAMA DUBEY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 519

building measure, it would be appropriate to direct that the A
security to the victim’s family and the witnesses shall be provided
by the CRPF. [Paras 11 and 12][528-A-D]
2.2. Respondent No.2 (Chief Secretary, State of U.P) in
WP(Crl) No.296/2020 shall bring this order to the notice of the
competent officer of the CRPF forthwith with a request to provide B
adequate security to the victim’s family and the witnesses and
the CRPF shall take steps to provide the same and shall report
the same to the High Court. [Para 14][529-A-B]
3. There is no need to pass any specific order as regards
appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. This is an aspect which C
could be considered by the High Court in the light of the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the circumstance wherein
the family members of the victim have chosen to engage their
private Advocates, they would consider these aspects and make
request on behalf of the victim in accordance with law if such D
need arises. [Para 13][528-F-G]
4. Insofar as the transfer of the case to Delhi is concerned,
it would be appropriate for investigating agency to complete the
investigation and in any event since the local police have been
divested of the investigation and the CBI is carrying out the E
investigation, there would be no room for apprehensions at this
stage. However, the issue as to whether the trial of the case is to
be transferred, is a matter which is kept open to be considered if
need arises in future. [Para 15][529-B-C]
5. The name and relationship of the family members with F
the victim have been depicted in the face of the order dated
12.10.2020 passed by the High Court in PIL(C) No.16150/2020.
Since it is a requirement of law to avoid such disclosure, the High
Court is requested to delete the same and also morph the same
in the digital records and avoid indication of such contents in G
future. [Para 16][529-D-E]
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 296 of 2020.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A With
Writ Petition (Crl) Nos. 304, 308, 314 and 316 of 2020.
Tushar Mehta, SG, K. M. Natraj, ASG, Harish Salve, Ms. Indira
Jaisingh, Sidharth Luthra, Colin Gonsalves, Sr.Advs., Pradeep Kumar
Yadav, Abhay Singh Yadav, Sanjeev Malhotra, Smarhar Singh, Rajesh
B Kumar, Gopi Raman, Md. Shahid Anwar, Firoz A. Shaikh, Hareesh
Ahmad Minhaj, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Shantanu Sharma, S. B. Talekar,
Karthik Jayashankar, Ms. Pradnya Talekar, Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan,
Vipin Nair, Rajat Nair, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Garima Prashad,
Ms. Kirti Singh, Ms. Nandita Rao, Ms. Manali Singhal, Ms. Iti Pandey,
C Ms. Swaty Singh Malik, Ms. Ekta Kapil, Ms. Pooja Saigal, Ms. Sanjoli
Mehrotra, Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Ms. Anshika Sood, Ms. Jyoti Babbar,
Ms. Anjali Sharma, Ms. Shreya Agrawal, Ms. Anasuya Chowdhary,
Ms. Kritika Gupta, Ms. Megha Katheria, Ms. Atishree Sood, Ms. Saumya
Tandon, Ms. Geetika Panwar, Ms. Anubha Rastogi, Saurabh Kirpal,
Akshay Makhija, Gaurav Sarin, Vineet Jhanji, Ms. Sonia Mathur,
D Ms. Ruksana Chowdhary, Ms. Arundhati Katju, Ms. Purnima Malik,
Ms. Daisy Hannah, S.Sagar, Sahil Modi, Vivek Suri, Ms. Sonam Gupta,
Ms. Silky Wadhwa, Rahul Chouhan, Ms. Guninder Kaur Gill, Manu
Yadav, Ms. Apporva Pandey, Ms. Sonam Anand, Sanjeev Mahajan,
Ms. Pooja Dhar, Iram Majid, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Ms. Anuradha Dutt,
E Ms. Kriti Kakkar, Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Ms. Zeba Khair, Ms. Sangeeta
Bharti, R. R. David, Warisha Farasat, Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Ms. Kajal
Chandra, Ms. Shalini Sati Prasad, Ms. Tanvi Asthana, Surya Rajappan,
Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Ms. Manali Singhal, Ms. Prachi Dutta,
Tarannum Cheema, Darpan Wadhwa, Ashish Dholakia, Abhimanyu
Mahajan, Prosenjeet Bannerjee, Tahira Karanjawala, Ms. Menaka
F Guruswamy, Miriam Fozia Rahman, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Rohit Kaul,
Ms. Nandita Chauhan, Shashank Agarwal, Abhimanshu Dhyani,
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Niharika Karanjawala, Satyam Chaturvedi,
Ms. Ritu Raj Srivastava, Virinder Pal Singh Sandhu, Jatin Mongia,
Kashyap Guddi Patti, Ms. Beena Pandey, Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan,
G Shadab Husain Khan, Ms. Ritu Bhalla, Firdaus Moosa, Shahrukh Alam,
Mrinalini Sen, Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Amita Gupta, Aathira Pillai, Satakshi
Sood, Ms. Naomi Chandra, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Kiran Kalra,
Ms. Prachi V. Sharma, Ms. Neha Dhir, Ms. Neha Pandey, Ms. Suruchi
Suri, Anupam Sanghi, Ms. Rea Bhalla, Ms. Mahjabeen, Satvik Varma,
Ms. Ila Kapoor, Ms. Charul Sarin, Viraj Datar, Ms. Nandini Gore,
H
SATYAMA DUBEY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 521

Ms. Shreya Singhal, Fozia Ahmed, Ms. Ruchi Singh, Ms. Surabhi A
Agarwal, Aashneet Singh, Karan Seth, Varun Kumar, Ms. Aprajita
Budhwar, Ms. Rakshita Kachroo, Ms. Bonita Singh, Yogendra Misra,
Mridul Yadav, Rajat Soni, Ms. Ruchi Agnihotri, Ms. Meghna Mishra,
Ms. Gurkirat Kaur, Ms. Seema Kushwaha, Ishit Saharia, Ms. Aparna
Bhat, Ms. Karimhma Maria, Sudhir Mendiratta, Nishit Agrawal, Sheezan
B
Hashmi, Anmol Kheta, Harsh Mishra, Gunjan Singh, Ms. Pragya Ganjoo,
Satya Mitra, Ms. Shobha Gupta, Ms. Prachi Apte, J. Sai Deepak, Suvidutt
M. S., Mrs. Anu B., Vibhor Ahlawat, Abhishek Avadani, Avinash Sharma,
Ms. Shaktiki Sharma, Ms. Vanya Agarwal, Yogesh Kumar, Abhijeet Singh,
G Ankolekar, Surendra Singh Ran, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ikshit Singhal,
Shantanu Jugtawat, Bhanu Priya Sharma, M/s. Mukesh Kumar Singh C
and Co., Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :

JUDGMENT
D
1. The petitioners and all the intervening applicants in these matters
have raised concern with regard to the manner in which a 19 years old
girl hailing from Hathras, Uttar Pradesh is alleged to have been raped,
brutally assaulted; due to which she lost her life and also the manner in
which she was cremated. The Writ Petition (Crl) No.296/2020 was initially
taken on board by this Court and notice was ordered to the respondents E
returnable in a week. In the meanwhile, the remaining petitions and the
applications were filed in respect of the same incident to seek for varied
reliefs which are all ultimately in pursuit of a fair investigation and bring
to justice the culprits.
F
2. The details of the other applications and writ petitions are as
follows:

Petition/Inte rvening Applicant/Petitione r Prayers
Applications
Cr. M.P. No. 10597 Ramu alias Ram Kumar Intervention Application seeking G
of 2020 indulgence of Court for ordering CBI
investigation or formation of SIT to
investigate the matter under a sitting
or retired Justice of SC or HC.
Further, transfer of trial to Delhi is
prayed for.
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A I.A. No. All India Women Conference (NGO) through its Prayer for impleadment as
101799 of General Secretary Ms. Kuljeet Kaur necessary party in the array
2020 of petitioners
Crl. M.P. Citizens for Justice and Peace through Secretary Seeking intervention and
No. 102148 directions for:
of 2020 1.Transfer of the
investigation to CBI
B 2.Protection of
witnesses by central
para military forces
3.Appointment of a
retired Judge of SC
to investigate the
C circumstances which
led to the cremation
of the victim.

Crl. M.P. Radhika Vemula &Ors. Praying for following
No. 105463 directions:
of 2020 1.Transfer of all
D connected cases of
gang-rape and death
from U.P. to Delhi
Special Court
2.Constitution of
SIT for investigation
E into the gang-rape
and death tragedy in
order to avert
political interference
3.Restraining the
respondents from
conducting
F polygraph test,
narco-analysis or
brain mapping on the
victim’s family
4.Protection to
victim’s family and
G other witnesses.
5.Directing
respondents to
strictly implement
SC & ST
(Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989
H
SATYAMA DUBEY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 523

I.A. No. 103488 of By Members of Delhi Seeking orders for: A
2020 High Court and Supreme
Court Bar Association 1. Constitution of SIT to investigate
the gang-rape and murder case
under the Court’s own monitoring
2. Providing adequate protection to
the witnesses
3. Transfer of trial from U.P. to B
SC/ST Special Court in Delhi
subject to consent from the
victim’s family
4. Appointment of a Senior
Advocate as special prosecutor
u/s 15 of the SC/ST Act, 1989
I.A. No. 106081 of Satendra Kumar Application seekingimpleadment as C
2020 respondent in WP (Crl.) No. 296 of
2020 or in the alternative seeking
permission to intervene in the said
matter.

Diary No. Letter petitions received For Appropriate directions being sought D
55441/2020, etc. through E-Mail by for by SC in the gang-rape and murder
citizens case

D.No. 54893/2020, Letter petitions received For Appropriate directions being sought
etc. through e-mail/by post for by SC in the gang-rape and murder
case
E
IA No. 105728 of Applicant/Shobha Gupta Intervention Application seeking
2020 permission to intervene to make
appropriate submissions and
suggestions as the matter is of extreme
importance.
F
Crl MP No. 105362 Applicant/Rashtriya Application for Impleadment as
of 2020 Dalit BachaoAndolan he himself belongs to the SC
Through its President community and direction to R to
O.P Shukla and Others ensure dignified cremation of all
the victims of crime and no
discrimination to be made toward G
SC, ST, OBC
Direction for investigation against
the officials who were
responsible for cremation and
illegal detention of the family
members to be monitored by this
Hon’ble Court. H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A Crl MP No. 105452 Applicant/MunnokaSam Application for intervention seeking an
of 2020 udayaSamrakshanaMunn investigation in the case against the
ani through its President accused and into the alleged lapses in the
administration into the case.

WP(Crl) No. 304 of Petitioner/Chandra Bhan Prayer for;
B Singh
2020
1. Mandamus for investigation of the
role of R3-R7 for mishandling of
Chandra Bhan Singh body of the victim
vs State of UP and 2. Direction to the Investigating agency
Others to get statement of the Mother, father
and brother of the victim before the
C magistrate and if the allegation made
by the family are true to register FIR
against the guilty.
Connected: Direction to take cognizance,
constitution of the HC monitored
Investigation, inquiry and suspension of
D the erring police, medical etc trying to
manipulate the evidence, charges to be
framed against police who were
responsible for cremation of the Victim.
Connected: WP(Crl)
No. 308 of 2020
Connected: Petitioner/
Sushma Motilal
Maurya vs State of Sushma Motilal Maurya
E
UP and Others

WP (Crl) No. 314 of Petitioner/Public mail Praying for following directions:
2020 Public mail through its publisher
through its publisher 1. Mandamus to R to fix the
vs Union of India responsibilities of the Police officials
F and Others who burnt the girl in midnight and to
punish them
2. Transfer the case to Delhi from
Hathras
3. Direction to R to make special forum
or frame guidelines for such rape in
future.
G WP (Crl) No.316 of Petitioner/Chetan Petition seeking direction to:
2020 Chetan Janardhan Kamble
Janardhan Kamble 1. Register offence u/s 166-A, 193
Vs Union of India ,201, 202, 203, 212, 217,153A and
and Others 339 of the IPC and 3(2) and 4 of the
SC and ST Act 1989 against Govt
officials involved in destruction of
H evidence
SATYAMA DUBEY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 525

Pe titio n/Inte rve ning A pplic an t/Pe titio ne r P raye rs A
A pplic atio ns
C r. M .P . N o. 10597 R a m u a lia s R a m K um a r Inte rve ntio n A pp lic a tio n
of 2020 se e king in du lge nc e of
C ourt for orde rin g C B I
in ve s tiga t io n or
form a tion of SIT to
in ve s tiga te the m a tte r B
unde r a s itt ing or re t ire d
Jus tic e of SC or H C .
Furthe r, tra nsfe r of tria l
to D e lh i is pra ye d for.

3. For a brief narration shorn of unnecessary details and to note C
the nature of the relief sought, the petition in W.P.(Crl.) No.296/2020 is
referred. In the Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India the petitioners are praying that the Union of India and concerned
authorities be ordered to conduct a fair investigation; if need arise by
transferring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ for
short) or SIT be formed to investigate the matter. It is also prayed that a D
sitting or retired Supreme Court Judge or High Court Judge be appointed
to look into the matter. The petitioners have further prayed that the case
be transferred from Hathras, Uttar Pradesh to Delhi.
4. The case as put forth is that a 19-year-old girl, resident of
Hathras village in Uttar Pradesh was brutally gang-raped. The manner E
in which she was assaulted is referred to in the petition. Though she was
shifted to Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi, she breathed her last and she
was cremated in the middle of the night without the presence of her
family members. Considering the manner in which the entire incident
had taken place, the petitioners contended that a fair investigation would
F
be possible only if the matter is entrusted to an independent agency.
5. The pleadings in the other writ petitions and the intervention
applications are relating to the same incident though different reliefs
have been sought, which in any event is to secure fair investigation and
punish the guilty in accordance with law.
G
6. At the outset, when the first of the petition was taken up by this
Court on 16.10.2020, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General had
fairly submitted that the instant petition would not be considered as an
adversarial litigation and the respondents are also interested that a fair
investigation be conducted and the offenders be brought to book. At that
H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A stage, it was noticed that the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
having taken note of the incident hadpassed a detailed order dated
01.10.2020 and ordered registration of the suo moto petition being
PIL(C)No.16150/2020. In that circumstance this Court was of the prima
facie view that the petitions filed before this Court need not be entertained
at this stage since the jurisdictional High Court was seized of the matter.
B
However, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Counsel while intervening
on behalf of the intervening advocates had raised concern with regard
to the adequate protection being provided to the victim’s family members
and the witnesses. Having found that such concern raised needs to be
addressed, the learned Solicitor General was requested to secure
C instructions on these aspects and file an appropriate affidavit.
7. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit dated 14.10.2020 sworn to by the
Special Secretary, Home Department, Uttar Pradesh is filed, wherein
the details of the security provided is indicated. In that regard it is stated
that the parents, two brothers, one sister-in-law and grandmother of the
D victim who are residing at village Chandpa, District Hathras, Uttar
Pradesh have been provided protection under a three-fold protection
mechanism through (a)Armed Constabulary Component, (b) Civil Police
Component and (c) Installation of CCTV cameras/lights. The details of
each of the component is also stated in the affidavit and it is further
stated that the Inspector (In-charge) of Police StationChandpa has been
E made In-charge of the aforesaid entire arrangement to deploy suitable
police force for the same. The Circle Officer, Sadabad is to ensure
robust security arrangement by holding regular clear briefings to the
police force and to inform the family members about the security
arrangements provided to them. The affidavit also states that on enquiry
F from the family members of the victim it is learnt that they have engaged
Ms. Seema Kushwaha and Mr. Raj Ratan, Advocates on behalf of the
family as their private advocates.
8. The affidavit also indicates that the investigation by the CBI
would be conducted under the supervision of the Court in a time bound
G manner. The Director General of Police, State of Uttar Pradesh has
also filed an affidavit indicating that the State Government itself has
sought investigation by the CBI to be conducted under the supervision
of the Court and on 10.10.2020 the CBI accepted the request of the
State and has started investigation in respect of the crime, on 11.10.2020.
The orders dated 01.10.2020 and 12.10.2020 passed by the High Court
H
SATYAMA DUBEY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 527

and the fact that the High Court has been apprised that the investigation A
by the CBI was in progress is stated therein.
9. In addition to hearing Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General who appeared for the State, Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior
Counsel for DGP and Smt. Seema Kushwaha on behalf of the family
members of the victim as also the other learned counsel lead by B
Ms. Indira Jaising, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel who
raised concern on behalf of the victim’s family in the various writ petitions
and applications, we have taken note of the submission made by
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel who sought to appear on
behalf of the accused to contend that the legal right available to the
accused ought not to be ignored in the process. C

10. Though various contentions were urged, the undisputed fact
is that the investigation has in fact been entrusted by the State
Government itself to the CBI on 10.10.2020 and the CBI has started
investigation in respect of the crime on 11.10.2020. Therefore, the
apprehensions expressed by the petitioners/applicants that there would D
be no proper investigation if the Uttar Pradesh Police conducted the
same would not remain open for consideration at this stage and the
grievance to that extent stands redressed. Though the petitioners had
sought and the respondent-State also through their affidavit had indicated
that this Court can monitor the same, as already referred to above, a E
PIL(C)No.16150/2020 has been registered in the Allahabad High Court,
Lucknow Bench, suo motopursuant to its order dated 01.10.2020. From
the order passed by the High Court it is noticed that the High Court has
adequately delved into the aspects relating to the case to secure fair
investigation and has also secured the presence of the father, mother,
brother and sister-in-law of the victim and appropriate orders are being F
passed, including securing reports from various quarters. In that
circumstance, we do not find it necessary to divest the High Court of the
proceedings and take upon this Court to monitor the proceedings/
investigation. That apart, the incident having occurred within the
jurisdiction of that High Court and all particulars being available, it would G
be appropriate for the High Court to proceed to monitor the investigation
in the manner in which it would desire. In that view, it would be open for
the writ petitioners/applicants herein to seek to intervene in the matter
before the High Court subject to consideration of such request by the
High Court and if it finds the need to take into consideration the contentions
to be urged by the petitioners/applicants in that regard. H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A 11. Insofar as the protection to the victim’s family and the
witnesses, the limited purpose for which this Court had directed notice
and sought for an affidavit; the affidavit as filed no doubt indicates that
sufficient steps have been taken by the State Government to provide
protection. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Counsel wouldhowever,
contend that the protection as provided through the State Police would
B
not be appropriate and as such the protection be directed to be provided
by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). It is further contended by
her that a Special Public Prosecutor be appointed and the monitoring be
made.
12. Having taken note of the contentions and having perused the
C affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government we are convinced that
steps have been taken by the State Government to make adequate
arrangement for security to the victim’s family and witnesses. However,
in a matter of the present nature it is necessary to address the normal
perception and pessimism which cannot be said as being without
D justification. In that view, without casting any aspersions on the security
personnel of the State Police; in order to allay all apprehensions and only
as a confidence building measure, we find it appropriate to direct that
the security to the victim’s family and the witnesses shall be provided by
the CRPF within a week from today.
E 13. On the aspect relating to the investigation, since we have
indicated that the High Court would look into that aspect of the matter,
the CBI shall report to the High Court in the manner as would be directed
by the High Court through its orders from time to time. On the request
of Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel for appointment of a Special
Public Prosecutor we see no need to pass any specific order. This is an
F aspect which could be considered by the High Court in the light of the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the circumstance wherein the family members
of the victim have chosen to engage Ms. Seema Kushwaha and Mr. Raj
Ratan, Advocates, they would consider these aspects and make request
G on behalf of the victim in accordance with law if such need arises.
14. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the rival contentions, all aspects of the matter are left open to be
considered by the High Court in PIL(C) No.16150/2020 relating to the
incident regarding which the investigation is to be conducted by the CBI
H and also with regard to the grievance put forth alleging illegal cremation.
SATYAMA DUBEY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 529

With regard to the protection to the victim’s family and witnesses,the A
respondent No.2 (Chief Secretary, State of U.P) in WP(Crl) No.296/
2020 shall bring this order to the notice of the competent officer of the
CRPF forthwith with a request to provide adequate security to the victim’s
family and the witnesses and the CRPF shall take steps to provide the
same and shall report the same to the High Court.
B
15. Insofar as the transfer of the case to Delhi as sought by the
petitioners/applicants, Ms. Seema Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
victim’s family indicated that the need for transfer would arise after the
investigation is complete. On this aspect we are also of the view that it
would be appropriate for investigating agency to complete the investigation
and in any event since the local police have been divested of the C
investigation and the CBI is carrying out the investigation there would
be no room for apprehensions at this stage. However, the issue as to
whether the trial of the case is to be transferred is a matter which is kept
open to be considered if need arises in future.
16. Before parting, we take note of the submission of the learned D
Solicitor General about the name and relationship of the family members
with the victim being depicted in the face of the order dated 12.10.2020
passed by the High Court in PIL(C) No.16150/2020. Since it is a
requirement of law to avoid such disclosure, the High Court is requested
to delete the same and also morph the same in the digital records and E
avoid indication of such contents in future.
17. In terms of the above observations and directions, the writ
petitions and applications stand disposed of. No costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Petitions and applications disposed of.
F

G

H