Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 19-08-2020 in case of petitioner name Ghanshyam Upadhyay vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Other
| |

Vikas Dubey Encounter Case: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Judicial Commission Inquiry

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 19, 2020, addressed a crucial legal challenge concerning the judicial commission’s inquiry into the alleged extrajudicial killing of gangster Vikas Dubey by the Uttar Pradesh Police. The case, Ghanshyam Upadhyay vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., was filed as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking an independent investigation into the police action.

The petitioner contended that the killing of Vikas Dubey in a police encounter on July 10, 2020, was a staged execution and required an impartial Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine the matter.

Background of the Case

On July 3, 2020, a police team was ambushed in Bikru village, Kanpur, by Vikas Dubey and his associates. Eight policemen were killed in the attack. Following this, Dubey was arrested in Madhya Pradesh and handed over to the Uttar Pradesh Police.

During his transit to Kanpur, the police vehicle carrying Dubey allegedly met with an accident. According to the police, Dubey attempted to escape, leading to an encounter where he was shot dead. The incident raised serious concerns over the legality of the police action.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Ghanshyam Upadhyay)

The petitioner contended that:

  • The encounter was a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.
  • The Uttar Pradesh Police had a premeditated plan to eliminate Dubey, preventing a fair trial.
  • The destruction of Dubey’s house before his arrest was unlawful and indicative of the police’s malafide intent.
  • The state government’s judicial commission was biased and should be replaced with an independent SIT.

Respondents’ Arguments (State of Uttar Pradesh & Others)

The respondents countered that:

  • The encounter was a legitimate police action taken in self-defense.
  • The Uttar Pradesh government had already constituted a judicial inquiry commission led by retired Supreme Court Justice B.S. Chauhan.
  • The destruction of Dubey’s property was carried out under legal orders.
  • The Supreme Court should allow the commission to complete its work before considering further action.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the petitioner’s claims and the state government’s response. The key observations included:

  • The state government had taken appropriate steps by forming a judicial inquiry commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
  • The petitioner’s allegations were based on newspaper reports, which lacked evidentiary value.
  • The Commission, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, had the authority to summon witnesses and gather evidence.
  • The court found no compelling reason to interfere with the ongoing inquiry.

Important Verbatim Observations by the Supreme Court

“A commission constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act is empowered merely to investigate, record its findings, and make recommendations. Its findings are not binding on courts.”

“While we acknowledge the petitioner’s concerns, the judicial commission has been constituted in accordance with the law and must be allowed to function.”

“Newspaper reports do not constitute admissible evidence. Courts must exercise caution before acting upon unverified media reports.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that:

  • The judicial commission led by Justice B.S. Chauhan was valid and would continue its work.
  • The petitioner’s request for an independent SIT investigation was dismissed.
  • The commission was directed to submit its report within two months.
  • The court would review the findings of the commission once submitted.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for judicial oversight of police encounters:

  • It reinforces the role of judicial commissions in investigating high-profile extrajudicial killings.
  • It emphasizes the need for independent inquiries rather than direct judicial intervention.
  • It clarifies that courts should not act solely on newspaper reports without substantial evidence.
  • It sets a precedent for handling similar encounter cases in the future.

The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that allegations of police misconduct are investigated within the framework of the law while preventing unnecessary judicial overreach.


Petitioner Name: Ghanshyam Upadhyay.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice S. A. Bobde, Justice A. S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Place Of Incident: Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 19-08-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ghanshyam Upadhyay vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-08-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts