Supreme Court Denies Petition for Relocation of Victim's Family in 2020 Hathras Case

Supreme Court's Decision on Hathras Case

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition requesting the relocation of a Dalit family from Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, to Delhi, following the gang rape and murder of their 10-year-old daughter in 2020. The bench, comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, noted that the Allahabad High Court is already overseeing the case. They suggested that the High Court should address the petition concerning the family's relocation based on safety and rehabilitation needs.

The court expressed that it was not appropriate for them to consider the order for two reasons: firstly, the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was limited to an interim order issued on June 27, 2022, which had been in effect for a considerable time. Secondly, a subsequent order is currently under review by the High Court. The Supreme Court urged the High Court to hear the petition challenging the order and to issue a ruling in accordance with the law.

Legal Arguments Presented

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by the victim's family through their lawyer, Mahmood Pracha. He argued that the SC/ST Act, particularly Rule 15, mandates the creation of a safety plan for the victim. Pracha expressed frustration over the High Court's refusal to allow the family to move to Delhi due to jurisdictional issues. During the proceedings, the bench questioned the appropriateness of the petition given that the matter was still pending in the High Court, asking, "Why is this case being heard here when it is still active in the High Court?" They also inquired how the petitioner could seek legal remedies in two different jurisdictions simultaneously.

In response, Pracha pointed out that the High Court had denied certain reliefs, including the request to relocate the family outside Uttar Pradesh, prompting the petitioner's appeal to the Supreme Court. He highlighted parts of the High Court's records indicating that the petition for relocation to Delhi had not been considered.

State Government's Position

A lawyer representing the Uttar Pradesh government informed the court that the state had issued orders proposing to resettle the family within Uttar Pradesh, in locations such as Aligarh or Kasganj. The lawyer emphasized that this issue remains "fully alive" in the High Court. The bench noted that the High Court had expressed dissatisfaction with the state government's stance. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and requested the High Court to expedite its decision on the pending application in accordance with the law.