Introduction:

In a significant development, the Uttarakhand High Court has taken suo moto cognisance of a violent altercation that occurred on January 26, 2025, in Roorkee, involving independent MLA Umesh Kumar and former BJP MLA Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion. The court’s intervention has prompted the state government to initiate actions, including the cancellation of government accommodations allotted to both political figures.

Background of the Incident:

On January 26, 2025, a dispute between Umesh Kumar, the independent MLA from Khanpur, and Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion, a former BJP MLA, escalated into a violent confrontation in Roorkee. Reports indicate that both parties, accompanied by their supporters, attacked each other’s offices, leading to significant unrest in the area. The incident was widely covered in the media, highlighting the severity of the clash.

Court’s Suo Moto Cognizance:

The Uttarakhand High Court, terming the incident as “unfortunate and shameless,” took suo moto cognisance of the matter. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal’s bench directed the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police of Haridwar to submit detailed affidavits. These affidavits were to include video evidence of the incident, copies of the FIRs filed, details of actions taken, and the current status of the investigation. The court emphasised that such behaviour by political figures tarnishes the state’s reputation.

State Government’s Response:

In response to the court’s directives, the Uttarakhand government informed the High Court that steps had been initiated to cancel the government accommodations provided to both Umesh Kumar and Kunwar Pranav Singh, Champion. Deputy Advocate General JS Virk apprised the court of the following actions:

• Security Review: A committee has been constituted to assess the security arrangements for both individuals. The committee is expected to make its recommendations shortly.
• Cancellation of Government Accommodation: The matter has been forwarded to the concerned Secretary for the cancellation of the government accommodations allotted to both political figures.
• Disclosure of Criminal History: An explanation has been sought from the concerned Prosecution Officer regarding the non-disclosure of the criminal history of ex-MLA Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion to the relevant court.

Arguments Presented:

State’s Submission: Deputy Advocate General JS Virk provided details about the monthly rent of the government accommodations allotted to both individuals. For Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion, the rent was stated to be Rs. 9,209 per month, while for Umesh Kumar, it was Rs. 1,693 per month.

Counter-Argument:

Advocate Gaurav Singh from Roorkee contested these figures, asserting that the actual market rent for these accommodations, located in prime city areas, would be approximately Rs. 70,000 per month.

Senior Advocate’s Concern: Senior Advocate Arvind Vashisht expressed apprehension that the High Court’s suo moto cognisance might influence other authorities or courts. The bench, however, noted the absence of any evidence supporting this claim and remarked that if any authority or court is influenced, relevant material should be presented to the court.

Court’s Observations:

The High Court emphasised that any authority or court should proceed as per the law without being influenced by the fact that the High Court has taken suo moto cognisance of the incident. The bench clarified that other legal remedies could be pursued independently, ensuring that the suo moto action does not prejudice any ongoing or future proceedings.

Current Status and Next Steps:

The matter has been listed for further hearing. The court awaits detailed reports from the state authorities and has indicated that it will monitor the situation closely to ensure that appropriate actions are taken against those involved in the incident.

Conclusion:

The Uttarakhand High Court’s proactive stance in taking suo moto cognisance of the Roorkee incident underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding law and order, especially when public figures are involved. The state’s prompt response in initiating actions against the individuals concerned reflects the seriousness of the matter. As the situation unfolds, it remains imperative for the authorities to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation, ensuring that justice is served and public trust in the legal system is maintained.