Supreme Court questions UP officer over absence in 2021 hate crime case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government over the absence of the investigating officer in a 2021 hate crime case. The court asked why the officer is avoiding court proceedings, noting that repeated non-appearance amounts to playing hide and seek with the judiciary.

Court's sharp observations

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed displeasure when the state counsel could not explain the officer's absence. The court remarked that such behaviour erodes public trust in the investigation process.

"Why is the investigating officer playing hide and seek with the court? This is a serious matter," the bench said. The court has given the state government one last chance to ensure the officer's presence on the next date of hearing.

Background of the case

The case dates back to 2021, when a hate crime was allegedly committed in Uttar Pradesh. The complainant approached the Supreme Court after the investigation stalled. The court had earlier directed the state to complete the probe within a fixed timeline.

Despite court orders, the investigating officer has failed to appear multiple times. The petitioner's counsel argued that the officer's absence has stalled the trial, leaving the victim without justice for over two years.

Government's response

The state's counsel submitted that the officer was on leave during the previous hearing. The court, however, was not satisfied. "This cannot be an excuse. The officer must appear unless there is a genuine medical or administrative reason," the bench observed.

The court directed the state to file an affidavit explaining the officer's absence. It also warned that if the officer fails to appear next time, the court may consider contempt proceedings.

What this means for the investigation

Lawyers say the Supreme Court's tough stance signals that delays in hate crime cases will not be tolerated. The court has also asked the state to ensure that the trial concludes within six months from the next hearing.

The case highlights the larger issue of police accountability in hate crime probes. Legal experts point out that investigating officers are often transferred or made unavailable, derailing cases that involve communal tensions.

The next hearing is scheduled in four weeks. The court has made it clear that the investigating officer must be present in person. If the officer fails to comply, the court may summon the senior police official of the district.

Observers will watch closely how the Uttar Pradesh government responds. The case could set a precedent for how courts handle officer non-cooperation in sensitive investigations.