The Supreme Court on Wednesday evening ordered the Delhi police commissioner to ensure the personal safety of JNU student union leader Kanhaiya Kumar and all those lawyers and journalists who were ins
The Supreme Court on Wednesday evening ordered the Delhi police commissioner to ensure the personal safety of JNU student union leader Kanhaiya Kumar and all those lawyers and journalists who were inside the Patiala House court hall when the sedition case was heard.
A bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and A.M. Sapre passed this order when a team of senior advocates sent by it to witness the ground reality at the Patiala House courts around 2 pm informed the bench later that despite the apex court order earlier in the day, Kanhaiya was assaulted inside the court by an advocate. It sought a report from the police on the day’s incidents by 10.30 am on February 19.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave and others informed the bench that a group of men in lawyers’ robes, in open defiance of the Supreme Court order, barged into the Patiala House courts complex and assaulted a journalist and Kanhaiya Kumar. They said the group, which was seen raising the slogan “Vande Mataram” and waving the Indian flag on the court premises, was led by lawyer Vikram Chauhan.
The bench, while expressing serious concern over the developments, asked the members of the committee to give a report on Wednesday’s developments by 2 pm on Thursday. The Delhi high court registrar-general was also asked to give a report by Thursday afternoon. On the plea that the trial venue be shifted outside Patiala House, the bench said, “We don’t want to send a wrong signal.”
On Wednesday morning, when the writ petition filed by JNU alumnus N.D. Jayaprakash was taken up, a host of lawyers alleged that there was physical violence and intimidation faced by the petitioner and a large number of students, teachers and journalists while attending a judicial proceeding before the court of Sh. Loveleen, metropolitan magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, as well as in the court complex which was in the presence of Respondent No. 2 (Delhi police).
They submitted that violence in the court complex can never be permitted or countenanced. It is so serious a breach so as to tantamount to criminal contempt of court and denial of access to justice. Even a surcharged atmosphere is considered not conducive to justice and, by that standard, physical violence must be treated as the grossest of contempt, apart from various other offences.
The atmosphere was so surcharged that even the women journalists were not spared and were not permitted to discharge their journalistic duties and be able to report the events as witnessed by them directly. More than a dozen journalists, including women journalists, suffered physical assault and sustained injuries. The mobile phones of journalists were snatched, broken or stolen to try and stop them from reporting the violence. The police were a mute spectator to this brazen display of violence and brute force being perpetrated on innocent persons who had gathered on the court premises, they said.
The bench condemned the violence and ordered regulation of entry of lawyers, journalists and others into the Patiala House court hall where the sedition case was being heard. The bench directed entry of only five journalists in the trial court, and six lawyers representing the accused and prosecution. “Since the accused is a young student, we also deem it appropriate to permit the immediate family members of the accused, not exceeding four, on identification by the accused. If such family members are not there, then one from the faculty and one from the student community identified by the accused shall be permitted into the court,” the bench said.
The hearing before the bench was briefly disrupted by a lawyer shouting “Vande Mataram”. When the bench asked him to be produced, the lawyer, Rajeev Yadav, apologised, saying, “I am so sorry, my Lords. I could not contain myself.” Justice Chelameswar told the young advocate, “Please don’t degrade this institution for your own sake, for the sake of your country and your future generations. If you do it, nothing will remain.” The bench sought reports from the high court and the lawyers’ team and posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday.
