Agartala: The High Court of Tripura on Wednesday ordered the expansion of the high-level inquiry committee by appointing retired district judge Subhash Sikdar to inquire against the West Tripura DM for his action against the two marriage halls on April 26 last.
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice AA Kureshi and Justice SG Chattopadhyay was hearing public interest litigation (PIL) and two writ petition filed by the priest and the father of the bride against Dr Shailesh Kumar Yadav for thrashing the groom by his collar, beating the priest and using unparliamentary language against relatives.
“The committee will conduct a detailed inquiry into the incident and suggest measures to be taken in the matter,” Chief Justice AA Kureshi said.
The court also said that in any case, it is clarified that while inquiring into the entire incident, the committee shall also inquire into this allegation of the petitioners and make a specific report in this respect.
“The inquiry committee freshly constituted with the addition of one member would proceed with the inquiry from the stage it has already reached and for which purpose the stay granted against a further inquiry in the order dated 03.05.2021 is lifted,” the court said.
The court also ordered that the inquiry report shall not be published without first placing it before the court, and without the leave of the court.
The court after hearing the petitioners counsel and advocate general representing the state inquired the status of the investigation to which the court was informed that Tripura DM Yadav was transferred to Belonia, South Tripura district.
Also watch: Tripura DM says ‘I stand by my actions’
“Now that such complaints have already been filed, we would expect the members of the public not to burden the administration by filing fresh complaints unless some new allegation or angle which is not already brought on record comes to light,” the court said.
Yadav had shot into the limelight after a video of him thrashing a groom for flouting the night curfew went viral on April 27. Following this, the DM faced a major backlash from politicians, netizens and locals, while many others showed their support for the officer.
Before closing, the court recorded and substantially shared the anxiety of the advocate general that persons engaged in enforcing rules and regulations must not be demoralised in times when the state is grappling with the spread of COVID-19.
The case would be heard on May 12 next.