Supreme
Court has agreed to hear a plea seeking initiation of contempt
proceedings against arrested JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar
The
raging JNU sedition row assumed an altogether different dimension on
Friday with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a plea seeking initiation
of contempt proceedings against arrested JNUSU President Kanhaiya
Kumar, absconding student activist Umar Khalid, ex-DU professor SAR
Geelani and four others.
This was in connection with alleged
distribution of pamphlets during events at the JNU campus and Delhi
Press Club which termed Parliament attack case convict Afzal Guru's
hanging as "judicial killing". The death sentence awarded to Guru by
sessions court was confirmed by Delhi High Court and Supreme Court.
"By
calling the act as judicial killing, judges of the apex court have been
projected as killers despite the free and fair trial of the convict and
it clearly tantamount to criminal contempt. The Supreme Court needs to
take stringent action against the offenders. The parties named in the
petition have crossed every limit of the fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression," Petitioner Vineet Dhanda, a Supreme Court
lawyer said in the petition.
A
bench headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur agreed to list the plea for
hearing next week after it was mentioned by senior lawyer JP Dhanda. The
other four who have been made parties in the petition include Lenin
Kumar, member of the Democratic Student Federation, research scholar
Anirban Bhattacharya, JNUSU vice-president Shehla Rashid Shora, and Ali
Javed, a member of the Press Club of India.
"Supreme Court of
India has passed a detailed judgment after giving due consideration as
per law and after going through the evidence. Afzal Guru was hanged to
death after he had exhausted all legal remedies," the petition said.
Meanwhile,
Kanhaiya failed to get relief from SC after it refused to hear his bail
plea and asked his battery of top lawyers to approach Delhi HC. They
have moved HC and the plea is likely to be come up for hearing on
Monday. This means that Kanhaiya will have to spent at least three more
nights in Tihar Jail.
Citing the reason for rejection, the apex
court said if it directly entertains a bail plea, it would set a
"dangerous precedent". "Why have you come here directly? If we entertain
it will be laying a dangerous proposition opening floodgates for all
accused in similar situation to come to us directly. This will be
witnessed especially in sensational cases. Why this short cut? If you
are objected there, then come here," Justice J Chelameswar said.
Senior
lawyers Soli Sorabjee and Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Kanhaiya,
replied that they came directly because SC "has been hearing petition
relating to denial of justice in the case". To this, the judge retorted:
"What is under scrutiny is something different …law and order
situation in Patiala house, violence etc.… for bail you definitely
approach the Delhi High Court".
Sorabjee then asked the bench to
only decide "if there was a genuine apprehension of denial of justice or
not to the bail applicant" after the violent incidents witnessed on two
days at Patiala House Court.
Ramachandran said the High Court
was also very close to Patiala House and was in the same hexagon.
Lawyers and other "elements" from there could come there also. The judge
then said in a lighter vein: "Sorry. If distance is the only criterion
then we are equi-distant from Patiala house."
Ramachandran got
support from senior counsel Rajeev Dhawan who was also in the
courtappointed panel that was rushed to Patiala House on February 17
during fresh violence. He said: "People who have access to Patiala House
have access to High Court also. Supreme Court is very secure as smart
cards are required for a lawyer to enter."
Supporting SC's plan to
move the bail plea to HC, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar who appeared
for the Delhi Police pointed out that there are several cases where
movie stars, politicians and hardcore terrorists are produced in courts
and similar situations exist. But the courts function smoothly.
"A
message definitely should not go out that the High Court was not a safe
place and not capable of holding hearings in such cases," he argued,
after which the SC transferred the plea to HC.