New Delhi: Delhi High Court will not hear bail plea of JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar today. Kanhaiya has been arrested by Delhi Police on sedition charges.
According to Registrar General of Delhi HC, Kanhaiya's bail plea can't be heard today because additional application in the matter is yet to be filed
The Supreme Court today refused to hear the bail plea of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar, who has been arrested on sedition charges. The apex court told Kanhaiya's counsel that the situation is not so bad that it warrants direct hearing of bail plea by Supreme Court.
Also read: Setback for S A R Gilani in sedition case, court rejects bail plea
Rejecting the plea that extraordinary situation led to moving the court for bail directly, the Supreme Court said that it will create a situation where accused from across the country will approach it. The court also transferred the bail plea of jailed JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar to Delhi High Court and asked the HC to expeditiously hear the matter.
"You are leading a dangerous proposition. If this court will entertain it, it will become a precedent which will be available to all the accused in the country. Wherever there will be sensitive cases involving political persons or prominent persons or others...you know the atmosphere in the court. So in every case if it is said that Supreme Court is only the court, it would be a dangerous precedent," a bench comprising justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre said.
Further, it said, "Remember, this is not the only case of this type."
While transferring the bail plea of Kanhaiya, who has been charged with sedition, the bench took an assurance from Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar that in the "prevailing extraordinary situation" pertaining to this matter, the Government of India and the Delhi Police Commissioner would provide adequate safety and security to the accused and a stream of lawyers who will be appearing in the High Court.
The bench also said that the counsel for all the parties would be given preference while entering into the court room at the High Court and the Registrar General would be responsible for limiting number of people to be allowed to enter inside.
The bench which asked the High Court to expeditiously deal with the matter did not give any specific date for listing it.
The Supreme Court permitted the counsel for Kanhaiya to amend his petition, which is to be filed shortly in the Delhi High Court.
The apex court was not in agreement with the arguments advanced by a battery of senior advocates including Soli Sorabjee, Raju Ramachandran and Rajeev Dhawan that extra-ordinary law and order situation, threat to life of the accused and his counsel, hostile environment at the lower court and the simmering situation compelled them to rush directly to it.
The advocates also submitted that they moved the apex court for bail as already a writ petition concerning the arrest of the JNUSU President was pending before it.
However, their submission was objected to by the lawyers for Centre and Delhi Police, including SG Ranjit Kumar, ASG Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Ajit K Sinha, who said the facts of the writ petition and bail plea are different and even opposed it being heard directly by the high court.
The bench was also of the view, "What is under scrutiny is something different and the writ petition is to be heard on Monday. It is totally different than the bail application."
When the argument was made by Kanhaiya's counsel about the law and security situation, the bench said, "We do agree with you that it is an exceptionally extraordinary circumstance."
The counsel said that they preferred the apex court to hear his bail plea as the situation in the High Court also would not be much different, to which the bench asked, "Is it so in the high court? Are we to understand that the HC is also agitated?"
While concluding the one-and-a-half-hour hearing, the bench said, "We permit them to make and amend the bail application today itself."
At the outset when Kanhaiya's bail plea was taken up, the bench asked his counsel, "Did you move bail petition before the trial court?"
When there was a negative reply, the bench asked the counsel, "Why are you rushing here?"
Ramachandran responded to the query and said the incident of February 17 does not require recounting, that is why they are before the apex court.
He said in the prevailing atmosphere, moving the sessions court for bail in the Patiala House Court complex was not possible and because of the general atmosphere, other lawyers were agitated yesterday.
"To go for me at any sessions court in Delhi is impractical, unsafe, dangerous to me as accused, dangerous to me as a lawyer who performs professional duty in calm and peaceful environment," he said.
Noting his submission, the bench wanted to know from him that why he did not then approach the Delhi High Court. The senior advocate said, "It was my statutory right to apply for bail and having experienced in the past few days, there was a feeling that there was denial of access to justice to my client."
He said he is also answering why he approached this court for the bail and continued with his submission that this court is seized of the matter concerning access to justice for Kanhaiya Kumar and he was seeking apex court indulgence.
However, the bench interrupted him and said, it was fully aware of the situation prevailing in the Patiala House Court complex and will examine the reports placed before it by the apex court-appointed commissioners, Registrar General of the Delhi HC and the Delhi Police.
"There were some commotions in the Patiala House Court. We know there is a difficult situation there. However, what is the difficulty and what prevents you from going to High Court," the bench asked.
Replying to this question, Ramachandran said, the facts relating to Kumar's arrest and subsequent events are still under the scrutiny of the apex court which is going to hear it on Monday.
However, the bench differed with him saying the matter listed for Monday and the bail pleas are not similar. The senior advocate agreed that the bail plea was not put on merit but only because of particular situation in and around the Patiala House Court complex.
