Stop the Vigilantes: Petition in SC against Assaults in Court

Source: Indian Express, Abhishek Angad: assailants Yashpal Singh (L), Vikram Chauhan (C) and Om Sharma (R) during the assault at Patiala House Courts
 

Supreme Court will hear a petition against the NDAII government and the Delhi police at 10.30 a.m. today, February 17

Senior academic and social activist, N. D. Jayaprakash has taken on both the government of India and the Delhi police for their severe derelictions of duty amounting to a miscarriage of justice and an infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and all those brutally assaulted within the Magistrate Loveleen’s court in the Patialia Court premises on February 15, 2016.
 
The physical violence and intimidation faced by the petitioner, Jayaprakssh and a large number of students, teachers and journalists while attending a judicial proceeding before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Loveleen on February 15, 2016 is a matter of deep concern. The violence and intimidation took place at the Patiala House Courts, Delhi, as well as in the court complex.

The Delhi police, present in large numbers, were mute spectators to the violence and did nothing to protect those being intimidated.

Jayaprakash, in his petition seeks directions of the Supreme Court to ensure the safety and security of all persons within the premises of the court during the trial of Kanhaiya Kumar, President of Jawarharlal Nehru University Students’ Union. While the police are duty bound to protect innocent citizens from acts of violence and vandalism in Court premises, they were mute spectators.

Due to the surcharged and vicious atmosphere in the Court premises, it is today not possible to even produce the accused. Deliberate intimidation and assaults by a section of lawyers and others, owing allegiance to the ruling dispensation ensured that violence broke out soon after the court was to assemble at 2.00 pm on February 15. The violence initially broke out inside the court and thereafter spilled over in the adjacent areas of the court complex as people started running to save themselves from the brutality of lawyers and outsiders which included several politicians.

Such brazen acts of 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. The judicial functioning requires a calm and tranquil atmosphere. Even surcharge atmosphere is considered not conducive to justice by that standard physical violence must be treated as grosses of contempt apart from various other offences. 

No question about the merits of the case of the students or teachers is being raised as that ought to be decided by the concerned court before which the matter is brought. This petition merely seeks to assure safety of the accused their relatives, friends, lawyers and journalists while discharging their legal as well as professional obligations.

The incident of February 15, 2016 in the Patiala house courts poses a serious threat to the life of the accused. 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 journalist including women journalists suffered physical assault and sustained injuries, the mobile phones of journalists were snatched, broken or stolen to prevent them to able to report the violence.

That police were a mute spectator to this brazen display of violence and brute force being perpetrated on innocent persons who had gathered in the Court premises. It is submitted that the State and the Police have bounden constitutional obligation to ensure the safety and security of the life and liberty of citizens. The incidence of February 15, 2016 is a crude affront to the rule of law and violation of Article 21.

I have been attending cases since 1989 before this Hon’ble Court, before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and before the District Court of Bhopal. However, it is for the first time in 27 years that I have had to confront such an ugly situation. I am greatly alarmed by the brazenness with which the said group of lawyers were attacking those who had come to watch the proceedings and the journalists, who had come to cover the proceedings.
 
The Supreme Court in Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr v. State Of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 has noted that it is the duty of the court to assure propitious conditions which conduce to comparative tranquility at the trial. Turbulent conditions putting the accused's life in danger or creating chaos inside the court hall may jettison public justice.
 
That a surcharged atmosphere in the court room where there exists a threat of physical violence and threat of intimidation, of family and friends or other persons known to the person against whom a FIR has been filed, such as the Petitioner, violates the fundamental rights of such persons, in particular under Articles 21.
 
That Respondent (officers) being present at the court should have avoided escalation of the violent situation which clearly impeded the proceeding and the safety of various persons present, including the Petitioner. It is submitted that a congenial atmosphere is imperative for a fair and impartial judicial proceeding, which is a fundamental right of every person under Article 21 of the Constitution.

ND Jayaprakash, aged 66 years, is a citizen of India and a resident of New Delhi. The Petitioner is also an alumnus of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi (“JNU”) and a social activist.
The petition has been filed against the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which is entrusted with the responsibility of internal security and law & order, etc. Respondent No. 2, the Delhi police, is directly under the control and supervision of the MHA, Respondent No. 1.The Respondent number 2 is Delhi Police. It is the duty of the Respondent to ensure that there is law and order maintained in the state of Delhi including Court premises. That the Police, Respondent No. 2 in the petition, has grossly derelictedin its duties in failing to provide safety and security to the litigants, journalists and others in the Patiala House Court premises on the day when the incident of took place.
 
Chronology of Events:
 
On February 15, 2016, around 02.00 pm at the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Loveleen, Patiala House Courts, Delhi a group of lawyers suddenly barged into the court room and asked them to vacate the chairs on which they were sitting, claiming that the chairs were only meant to be occupied by advocates. While the Petitioner (Jayaprakash) and one other male professor told the lawyers they would vacate the chairs and there was no need for them to get agitated, the said group of lawyers suddenly became violent and slapped and physically assaulted the male professor.

Brief Facts:
Around February 12, 2016, Kanhaiya Kumar, JNUSU President, was taken into judicial custody for 3 days, after an FIR was registered against him by the Police under Section 124A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, upon receipt of complaints from several persons.

Kanhaiya Kumar was to be produced on February 15, 2016, at the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Loveleen, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, at the end of the 3 day judicial custody, for further proceedings.

Jayaprakash was present, at or about 02.00 pm on February 15, 2016, at the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Loveleen, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, to attend the proceedings relating to the custodial detention of Kanhaiya Kumar. While he, the Petitioner was seated in the court room along with a group of about 7 or 8 professors and students from JNU, waiting for the court proceedings to commence, a group of lawyers barged into the court room and asked them to vacate the chairs on which they were sitting, claiming that the chairs were only meant to be occupied by advocates. While the Petitioner and one other male professor told the lawyers they would vacate the chairs and there was no need for them to get agitated, the said group of lawyers suddenly became violent and slapped and physically assaulted the male professor.
 
Meanwhile, some of the persons in that group of lawyers also started shouting that there was no need for them to learn manners from “Pakistani agents” and asked the Petitioner and the others to vacate the court room.  The female professors refused to move from there, which caused the said group of lawyers to abuse them. The lawyers of Kanhaiya Kumar, who rushed into the court room hearing the commotion were also abused and manhandled.
 
This conduct of this group of lawyers continued unabated. It was possible that the Magistrate was sitting in his chamber behind the court room but may have been reluctant to come to the court and restore order, given the atmosphere created by the aforesaid group of lawyers. However, the Petitioner is at a loss to understand why the Ld.Magistrate did not seek the help of the security personnel and the police to restore order in the court room.
 
Further, a large contingent of about 200 police personnel was present just outside the court room also because Union Minister (Finance) Mr.Arun Jaitley was appearing in one of the adjacent courts at the same time. After several of us sought help from some police officers, who were standing outside Court No.4, a few policemen came into the court room. However, no action was taken by them against the group of lawyers engaging in physical and verbal violence other than to stand between the said group of lawyers and the JNU teachers and a few others, who had come to attend the proceedings.
 
Thereafter, the Petitioner left the court room to make some calls about the out of hand situation and thereafter upon returning to the court room at about 3:00 pm, was shocked to see that a correspondent from a news channel was also being beaten up for refusing to hand over his mobile phone. The lone head-constable, who was present in the court room, could hardly protect the said correspondent from the attack.
 
In trying to save the correspondent, the Petitioner was also physically assaulted. After the group of lawyers snatched the mobile of the said correspondent, we were kicked and dragged out of the court room. The large contingent of police, including senior officers, who were stationed outside the court room, remained mute spectators while we were being beaten and pushed out of gate No.2 of Patiala House. There were other female news correspondents, present at site, who were also harassed by the group of lawyers.
 
During my brief absence from the court room, apparently several other journalists were roughed-up inside and outside the court room and their mobiles were snatched by the attackers or destroyed. These journalists have registered a formal complaint with the Tilak Marg Police Station against the systematic physical attack.
 
As a petitioner representing the cause of the Bhopal gas-victims, Jayaprakash says, “I have been attending cases since 1989 before this Hon’ble Court, before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and before the District Court of Bhopal. However, it is for the first time in 27 years that I have had to confront such an ugly situation. I am greatly alarmed by the brazenness with which the said group of lawyers were attacking those who had come to watch the proceedings and the journalists, who had come to cover the proceedings. My greatest fear was that, if the JNUSU President was brought before the court at that moment, he may have been literally lynched by that mob, which was baying for his blood. The said group of lawyers were terrorising all those who were present without any fear that they would ever be taken to task for their unacceptable behavior. I was shocked and dismayed by that terrible experience. Hence, I am filing this writ petition before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate remedy.”

Further, petitioner Jayaprakash makes out a series of grounds for his petition to be entertained:

–That a congenial atmosphere is imperative for a fair and impartial judicial proceeding, which is a fundamental right of every person under Article 21 of the Constitution.

-This Hon’ble Court in Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr v. State Of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 has noted that it is the duty of the court to assure propitious conditions which conduce to comparative tranquility at the trial. Turbulent conditions putting the accused's life in danger or creating chaos inside the court hall may jettison public justice. 

-This Hon’ble Court in Bablu Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 787 has held that keeping in view the concept of fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution, the interest of the community and the duty of the court, it can be irrefragably be stated that the court cannot be a silent spectator or a mute observer when it presides over the trial. Further, neither the prosecution nor the accused should corrode the sanctity of the proceeding.

— That a surcharged atmosphere in the court room where there exists a threat of physical violence and threat of intimidation, of family and friends or other persons known to the person against
  whom a FIR has been filed, such as the Petitioner, violates the fundamental rights of such persons, in particular under Articles 21.

— For that the situation deteriorated to the extent that the police found it impossible to produce the accused as violence broke out soon after the court was to assemble at 2.00 pm.

— For that the violence initially broke out inside the court and thereafter spilled over in the adjacent areas of the court complex as people started running to save themselves from the brutality of   
   lawyers and outsiders which included several politicians.

—  For that violence in the court complex can never be permitted as countenanced.

—  For that it is so serious a breach so as to tantamount to criminal contempt of court and denial of access to justice.

—  For that the judicial functioning requires calm and tranquil atmosphere. Even surcharge atmosphere is considered not conducive to justice by that standard physical violence must be treated as
   grosses of contempt apart from various other offences. 

— For that this petition no question about the merits of the case of the students or teachers is being raised as that may be decided by the concerned court before which the matter is brought.This
   petition merely seeks to assure safety of the accused their relatives, friends, lawyers and journalists while discharging their legal as well as professional obligations.

— For that incident of 15.02.2016 in the Patiala house courts raise serious threat to the life of the accused. 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.

— For that more than a dozen journalist including women journalists suffered physical assault and sustained injuries, the mobile phones of journalists were snatched, broken or stolen to prevent
   them to able to report the violence.

— For that police was mute spectator to this brazen display of violence and brute force being perpetrated on innocent persons who had gathered in the Court premises.

— For that the State and the Police have bounded constitutional obligation to ensure the safety and security of the life and liberty of citizens.

— For that the incidence of 15.02.2016 is a crude affront to the rule of law and violation of Article 21.

— That Respondent (officers) being present at the court should have avoided escalation of the violent situation which clearly impeded the proceeding and the safety of various persons present,   
    including the Petitioner.

— The Petitioner by way of present Writ Petition is seeking appropriate directions to the Respondents including the Police to ensure the safety and security of persons inside the Court Premises
    during the trial of Kanhaiya Kumar, President of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union. It is submitted that the Respondents are duty bound to protect innocent citizens from acts of
     violence and vandalism in Court premises.

—  That the Respondents are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 32. 

— That the Petitioner has not filed any other Petition in respect of the subject matter of this Petition in this Court or any other Court in India.

— That the Petitioner has no other alternative efficacious remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court for reliefs prayed for and if the same are granted that shall be complete.

For that the Petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to amend, alter its grounds at appropriate stage, if and when required. 

The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court of India to issue firm directions to ensure that that the proceedings against Kanhaiya Kumar at the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Loveleen, are carried out in a manner which is not prejudicial to the fundamental rights of the persons, such as the Petitioner, attending the proceedings;

Directions from the Supeme Court to ensure that Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Loveleen free of persons causing physical harm, any form of intimidation or any disturbance whatsoever; Orders directing Respondent 2, that is the Delhi Police, to ensure that proper and appropriate action is taken against any person who is obstructing the proceedings against Kanhaiya Kumar before Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Loveleen in any manner whatsoever; that the Supreme Court directs the MHA and Delhi Police to safeguard the CCTV footage in and around the said Court No.4 of Magistrate Loveleen, which may be used as evidence in any further proceedings in the matter.
 
Time Line