Hathras Gangrape Case: SC Refuses To Intervene UP Govt’s Plea Challenging HC Order To Hire Victim’s Family Member

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh government contesting the Allahabad High Court order to consider giving a job to a family member of a Hathras crime victim and relocating the family from Hathras.

At the outset itself, the bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala expressed surprise at the State’s filing of an appeal against the High Court’s ruling.

Garima Prashad, Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh, told the court that the state is willing to move the family, but “they want Noida, Ghaziabad, or Delhi. Whether the elder married brother can be considered a “dependent” of the victim was a question of law to be considered, the AAG added.

However, given the unique facts and circumstances of the case, the bench stated that it is unlikely to intervene.

“These are services offered to the family. We should not get involved. The state should not be involved in these matters,” CJI told the AAG.

“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution,” the bench stated in its ruling.

When the AAG asked that the question of law be left open, the CJI emphasized that the order said that it was passed in light of the special facts and circumstances of the case.

What was the High Court’s ruling?

The State filed the plea in response to the directives passed by a division bench of the High Court on July 26, 2022 in a suo motu case filed in connection with the alleged murder and gang-rape of a Dalit girl in Hathras. The Uttar Pradesh Government was ordered to consider hiring one of the victim’s family members under the Government or a Government Undertaking consistent with their qualifications.

The High Court passed the ruling after considering the family’s socioeconomic disadvantage as well as the rights guaranteed by the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. After reviewing the Act of 1989 and the Rules enacted thereunder, the Court concluded that the victim’s family has a legal basis for their claim of relocation and job. The state’s contention that providing work in such a circumstance would contravene Articles 14 and 16 was rejected as without any constitutional or legal basis.

The High Court also considered the fact that the majority of the population in the village is from the upper castes, and it is stated that the family is always targeted by other villagers, even though they are under the protection of the CRPF, and that whenever the family members go out, they are subjected to abuse and objectionable comments in the village. In light of this, the Court ordered the State to transfer the family elsewhere within the state.

The case gained nationwide attention after images of police cremating the victim’s body in the middle of the night, purportedly without the agreement of the victim’s family, went viral. A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court demanding a court-monitored probe into the alleged failures by the State Police. In response to the PIL, the UP government eventually informed the Court that it is open to a CBI inquiry, and the case was later transferred to the central agency.

The trial court issued its judgement in the case three weeks ago, ruling out gangrape and acquitting three of the four accused. The court found one accused, Sandeep, guilty of Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder under the Indian Penal Code (Section 304) and SC-ST Act violations.