Why didn't you take any action: SC slams Delhi Police over attack on Kanhaiya Kumar by 'lawyers'
Supreme Court on Monday questioned Delhi Police over the presence of some unsolicited persons in black robes in a courtroom where JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar was allegedly assaulted before being produced in the sedition case.
New Delhi: Supreme Court on Monday questioned Delhi Police over the presence of some unsolicited persons in black robes in a courtroom where JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar was allegedly assaulted before being produced in the sedition case.
"Why they were allowed? Why the police did not take any action? The whole situation was tense and high-voltage drama was going on from Patiala court to this court.
"If police force is acting like this then they (petitioner Kamini Jaiswal) are justified in seeking relevant inquiry," a bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre said.
The observation came when senior advocate Ajit Sinha, appearing for the police, referred to the report of Delhi High Court Registrar General to drive home the point that on 17 February, no unsolicited persons were allowed inside court number four of Patiala House Courts where Kanhaiya was to be produced.
He said two persons in black robes were present in other courtroom where the accused and accompanying cops stayed before the judicial proceedings that took place in another room.
Later, police found out about the persons who turned out to be lawyers, he said.
At the outset, senior advocate KTS Tulsi, appearing for lawyer N D Jaiprakash who alleged that he was beaten in the Patiala House Courts, said the police connived with some accused lawyers who assaulted his client and mediapersons.
"You allege that you were personally attacked. Tell us, what reliefs which you are seeking? Don't talk about all the things," the bench said.
The bench then heard lawyer Prashant Bhushan, representing Jaiswal, who sought an SIT probe and initiation of contempt action against three lawyers who were allegedly caught on camera "bragging and boasting" that they had beaten up the JNUSU President and others, including journalists, in the lower court complex.
The apex court has now posted the matter for further hearing on 22 April.
Earlier, the court had sought response from the Centre and Delhi Police on Jaiswal's plea seeking an SIT probe and initiation of contempt action against three lawyers in the case. These lawyers were allegedly caught in a sting operation.
The plea has sought "suo motu contempt proceeding" against lawyers Vikram Singh Chauhan, Yashpal Singh and Om Sharma on the ground that they have allegedly been caught on camera talking about the attacks.
It also sought a direction to set up Special Investigation Team to probe the incidents of violent attacks on journalists, students, teachers, defence lawyers and Kanhaiya on February 15 and 17 by some advocates in the premises of Patiala House courts during the hearing of the sedition case involving the JNUSU leader.
The plea was filed in pursuance of an oral observation by a bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar, which is hearing the matters arising out of violence in the trial court premises in the JNU case, that the allegations are fresh ones and hence, a fresh petition is required to be filed.
The plea alleged that the three lawyers interfered in the "administration of justice" and willfully violated the orders passed by the apex court on February 17.
The petition which also makes Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Police as parties, has said facts have come to light that there was "blatant violation of the rule of law" in the trial court premises.
A bench headed by Justice UU Lalit said the audit should be completed as early as possible, preferably within three months.
Abetment involves mental process of 'instigating a person' in doing something, declares Supreme Court
"Abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing," said bench comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy.
An apex court bench of justices M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose said it is up to the employer to shift the staff considering the requirement