New Delhi, March 6: The Supreme Court today took suo moto cognizance of police lathicharge on a woman in Tarn Taran and contractual teachers in Bihar. But what we beg to ask is why did the court ignore the case of murdered police officer?
On Wednesday, country's highest court sought explanation by Monday from both the states (Punjab and Bihar) on the conduct of the police and has directed the Attorney General to assist the matter.
The Supreme Court should have also taken cognizance of the case of Zia-ul-Haq, the murdered Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kunda, as it involves a powerful politician and the state of Uttar Pradesh, know for its lawlessness.
Since both the instances (Punjab and Bihar) of suo moto action involve police force, it was appropriate for the court to have picked up the issue of another policeman, and showed some equanimity in dealing with crime and punishment.
A police issue has different shades and Zia was known for his integrity and honesty. The UP case is going in all direction with Raja Bhaiya's involvement and the reluctance show by the government is being used by the vested interest to derail the investigation. Today the police officers wife has rejected the police theory and the first post mortem as she contends that it is worng.
The Uttar Pradesh police have not been able to find the bullet which allegedly killed him. According to the postmortem report Haq was hit by only one bullet but his widow Parveen Azad claims that he was hit by three bullets. Parveen, who is associated with the medical profession, claims that she saw several bullet wounds on her husband's body.
The police are still searching for the bullet and pinpoint the type of the killer weapon. The investigators have also been unable to find the DySP's service revolver, his mobile phone and also the weapon and bullet which allegedly led to his death.
Agreed that the case of woman being beaten up by the police in Tarn Taran and the police lathicharge in Bihar on a group of protesting contract teachers, were caught on camera. But the court has the power to go beyond what is seen and heard. The highest court should intervene in the UP case and shake up the state and its young chief minister.