The Delhi high court on Monday posed tough questions to the Delhi police for slapping sedition charge on JNUSU leader Kanhaiya Kumar. The court asked the police to show evidence against Mr Kumar over his “active role” in raising anti-India slogans and asked why the case was not lodged on February 9 itself. Although the prosecution maintained that Mr Kumar was “not cooperating” with the investigation and even came out with “contradictory” statements in joint interrogation by the Intelligence Bureau and the Delhi police, Justice Pratibha Rani wanted answers from the investigators to buttress claims of having evidence on allegations which included that Mr Kumar’s speech was “more than political.”
“The presence at the spot is different from participation in the anti-national slogans,” Justice Rani said and wanted to know “whether he (Mr Kumar) had played any active role in raising anti-India slogans.” “Whether the mobile recording, done at your (police) instance, showed that Kanhaiya had raised any such slogans,” the bench asked the police during the hearing of his bail plea which was witnessed by his father, uncle and an elder brother. The cops assured the court that the student leader would “not be victimised” if it was found that he has no role.
Mr Kumar’s family members were present in the court for the second day on Monday after the February 24 hearing. During the hearing, which was restricted to lawyers of the parties and family members of the accused, Justice Rani, who reserved the verdict on Mr Kumar’s bail plea for March 2, sought clarification as to how the accused was leading the group shouting slogans when students of another political group were also present.
“As per you (the Delhi police) there were two (ABVP and AISF) groups. Explain how petitioner (Kanhaiya) was leading the group and shouted anti-India slogans,” the judge asked and added, “Do the police have video evidence that Kanhaiya was raising anti-national slogans ”
The Delhi police, represented by additional solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, told the bench that they do not have any video in this regard but there was evidence that the JNUSU president was raising slogans and “the speech (by him) was more than political.”
The bench also asked why police officials who were present in plainclothes there did not take any action when the ASG himself had argued that such statements by the accused did not “sound good in taste.”
