Kaushal Kishor v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The order records developments pursuant to an earlier order dated 17-11-2016. The learned Attorney General for India, appearing for the Union of India, submitted that the Union of India had filed an affidavit stating (among other things) that the victim would be granted admission to the Kendriya Vidyalaya at Sector 24, Noida (Uttar Pradesh) for the academic session 2017-2018. The petitioner’s counsel took note of this statement, and the Court clarified that the present order was being passed in the special facts and circumstances of the case while keeping other directions in the prior order undisturbed.

Separately, in purported compliance with the earlier order, Respondent 2 filed an affidavit. The Attorney General (who had been requested to assist the Court) and the Amicus Curiae submitted that the affidavit did not satisfy the requirement of the earlier order and could not be treated as an unconditional apology. Respondent 2’s senior counsel then sought that the affidavit be ignored and undertook to file a fresh affidavit in accordance with paragraph 2 of the earlier order. The Court ignored the affidavit filed and directed Respondent 2 to file the requisite affidavit. The matter was directed to be listed on 15-12-2016.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the affidavit filed by Respondent 2 complied with the Court’s earlier order dated 17-11-2016, including the requirement that it amount to an unconditional apology.
2. Whether the affidavit filed by the Union of India adequately addressed the assurance relating to the victim’s admission to a Kendriya Vidyalaya for the academic session 2017-2018.
3. Whether Respondent 2 could substitute the word “apology” with the word “remorse,” and whether such wording would be acceptable (noted as an issue to be debated on the next date).

Arguments of the Parties

Union of India / Attorney General’s Submissions

• The Union of India filed an affidavit stating, inter alia, that the victim shall be given admission in the Kendriya Vidyalaya at Sector 24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, for the academic session 2017-2018.
• Regarding Respondent 2’s affidavit filed pursuant to the earlier order, it was submitted (along with the Amicus Curiae) that the affidavit did not meet the requirements of the order dated 17-11-2016 and could not be treated as an unconditional apology.

Petitioner’s Submissions

• The petitioner’s counsel took note of the affidavit/assurance regarding the victim’s admission.

Amicus Curiae’s Submissions

• The Amicus Curiae joined in the submission that Respondent 2’s affidavit did not satisfy the earlier order and could not be treated as an unconditional apology.

Respondent 2’s Submissions

• Respondent 2’s senior counsel requested that the affidavit already filed be ignored and stated that a fresh affidavit would be filed having regard to paragraph 2 of the order dated 17-11-2016.
• It was submitted that Respondent 2 intended to use the word “remorse” instead of “apology,” and that whether this would be accepted would be debated on the next date.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recorded and accepted the submission that the Union of India’s affidavit stated that the victim would receive admission to the specified Kendriya Vidyalaya for the 2017-2018 academic session; the petitioner’s counsel took note of this. The Court expressly noted that the order was being passed in the special facts and circumstances of the case and that the other directions issued in the prior order would remain undisturbed.

As to Respondent 2’s affidavit, the Court considered the submissions of the Attorney General (requested to assist the Court) and the Amicus Curiae that the affidavit did not meet the requirements of the earlier order dated 17-11-2016 and could not be treated as an unconditional apology. On Respondent 2’s request (through senior counsel) that the affidavit be ignored and replaced with a fresh affidavit compliant with paragraph 2 of the earlier order, the Court directed that the affidavit filed that day be ignored and ordered Respondent 2 to file the requisite affidavit in terms of the earlier order. The Court further recorded the submission that Respondent 2 intended to use “remorse” instead of “apology,” leaving its acceptability to be debated on the next date.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Court (i) recorded the Union of India’s affidavit stating that the victim shall be given admission in the Kendriya Vidyalaya at Sector 24, Noida for the academic session 2017-2018; (ii) clarified that the order was passed in the special facts and circumstances and that prior directions remained undisturbed; (iii) ignored the affidavit filed by Respondent 2 and directed Respondent 2 to file the requisite affidavit in terms of the earlier order; and (iv) listed the matter on 15-12-2016.

IMPLICATIONS: Respondent 2 was required to submit a fresh affidavit conforming to the earlier order, with the question of whether “remorse” could be used in place of “apology” expressly left for debate on the next date. The order also maintained the continuity of previously issued directions and did not indicate any broader legal rule beyond the “special facts and circumstances” of the case.