Gujarat High Court Declines to Investigate Attack on Foreign Students; Advocates Legal Remedy

In response to a request to intervene in an incident involving an attack on students from foreign countries at a university hostel in Ahmedabad, the Gujarat High Court asserted that it should not be transformed into a probe agency. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee declined to take suo motu cognisance of the matter, emphasizing that the police are responsible for investigating such incidents.

The court’s decision came after a lawyer urged it to treat the issue as a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Chief Justice Agarwal reiterated the court’s role as a constitutional body, highlighting that not every incident warrants PIL intervention.

“We are committed to ensuring justice, but we must not be tasked with conducting investigations. We are not in that role. We must remind ourselves that we are constitutional courts. While we are open to addressing relevant matters, this does not fall within our purview,” Chief Justice Agrawal stated.

She emphasized that the court cannot replace law enforcement agencies and should not be expected to undertake investigations. Instead, the court encouraged individuals seeking legal recourse to pursue appropriate legal remedies.

Regarding concerns raised about the completeness of the FIR filed by the police, the court directed the concerned lawyer to explore legal avenues for addressing the issue.

The incident under scrutiny occurred when a group of about two dozen individuals reportedly stormed the government-run Gujarat University’s hostel in Ahmedabad. They objected to students from foreign countries praying near the facility block where they resided. The altercation resulted in two students, one from Sri Lanka and another from Tajikistan, being hospitalized.

In response to the incident, the police registered an FIR against 20-25 unidentified assailants and initiated a thorough investigation with the formation of nine dedicated teams. As of now, five individuals have been apprehended in connection with the incident.

The court’s decision not to intervene underscores the importance of respecting institutional roles and procedures in addressing legal matters. While ensuring justice remains paramount, the court’s refusal to delve into investigative matters reaffirms the principles of legal jurisdiction and due process.