Nation Current Affairs 19 Feb 2016 Incorrect noting on ...

Incorrect noting on Kanhaiya's remand in SC order: Delhi police

Published Feb 19, 2016, 8:27 pm IST
Updated Feb 19, 2016, 8:28 pm IST
Kanhaiya Kumar was not produced in the court on February 15 but his counsel had said so, says police. (Photo: PTI)
 Kanhaiya Kumar was not produced in the court on February 15 but his counsel had said so, says police. (Photo: PTI)

New Delhi: Delhi Police on Friday drew the attention of the Supreme Court on incorrect noting in its last order that JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar was produced at the Patiala House Court on February 15 in connection with his remand, saying a "wrong message" has gone.

Senior advocate Ajit K Sinha, appearing for the Delhi Police said the accused was produced at the Tilak Marg Police Station on February 15 but it was wrongly reported to this court by his counsel on February 17 hearing that he was produced at the Patiala House Court.

"I had tried to bring to your notice that Kanhaiya Kumar was not produced in the court on February 15 but his counsel had said so and it came in the order. This is giving a wrong message," he told a bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre.

After listening to his submission, the bench said, "There was so much of confusion and distraction on that day."

Further, the bench said even today there is a lot of crowd in the courtroom and asked Sinha on how many occasions has he seen the courtroom packed like this. The senior advocate replied "very few times".

When Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar assured the apex court that the Centre and Delhi Police were duty-bound for every arrangement for holding a proper hearing in Delhi High Court, advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the accused, expressed apprehension of threat to her life and that of the other counsel even in the High Court.

"It is not just an extra-ordinary situation but life threatening situation. I am not exaggerating but our personal liberty cannot be put on threat. I am not here to sensationalise the situation. Even the Registrar General of the High Court was present in the Patiala House Court," she said, adding "there was permissible breakdown of security".

"I requested the Registrar General and said we are badly threatened. It was only after the intervention of the apex court-appointed commissioners that the situation turned," she said, adding, "I am not an alarmist".

Senior advocate Adish C Aggarwala said lawyers from the Patiala House Court can enter the apex court as around 200 members of Patiala House Courts are also members of the Supreme Court Bar Association and have valid proximity cards.

Aggarwala, who was representing the All India Bar Association, also said reports about the violence at the Patiala House court complex varied.

"The report from police is different from that of the report of the apex court-appointed commissioners," he said adding that senior advocate Ajit K Sinha, member of the senior lawyers' panel, has not signed the report.

Delhi Police also placed its report in a sealed cover. Advocate R P Luthra, an intervenor in the matter, claimed the entire episode was a "design" created by those supporting the JNUSU President.



More From Current Affairs