The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a liberal approach while deciding a plea for protection by a runaway couple, where the girl was short of attaining majority by a few months. The bench of Justice Sant Prakash held that it would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage, and directed Bathinda police to decide their application for protection within a week.

The petitioners, aged 17 years (girl) and 20 years (boy), came before the court seeking protection of their life and liberty at the hands of the parents of petitioner no.1. They wanted her to marry a person of their choice as they had come to know about her relationship with petitioner no. 2. Thus, she left her home on May 17 and they have been on the run since then. They decided to live together till such time as they could solemnise a marriage, i.e. on attaining the marriageable age.

They state that their relationship would never be accepted by the family as they belong to different castes. They even sought protection from Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda but there was no response.

The court observed that the petitioners have approached the court seeking protection of their life and liberty from the respondents while seeking directions restraining them from interfering in the peaceful live-in relationship of the petitioners.

“The petitioners have not approached this court either seeking permission to marry or for approval of their relationship. The limited prayer as noted is for grant of protection to them, fearing the ire of family members of petitioner No.1, on account of the parties residing together without the sanctity of a valid marriage,” the court noted.

The court cited the judgement given by a Division Bench of the court in Rajwinder Kaur and another Versus State of Punjab, (2014) where it was held that marriage is not a must for security to be provided to a runaway couple. The court also cited a recent judgement of the high court where a similar approach was taken as also orders of Allahabad High Court granting protection in such recent cases.

“The concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence,” the court observed.

The court also cited Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, where female live-in-partners and the children of live-in-couples have been accorded adequate protection.

The court also pointed to honour killings prevalent in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh which is a result of people marrying without their family’s acceptance.

“It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons from whom protection is sought. In case such a course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to uphold to the Rule of law,” the court held.

The court clearly stated that the petitioners have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the courts to judge them on their decision. The court also cited the Supreme Court judgement in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) whereby the court held that “live in relationship is permissible and the act of two adults living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful, while further holding that the issue of morality and criminality are not co-extensive”.

The court, thus, observed that the petitioners have not committed any offence and said, “This court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to”. The court refused to take the same view as other benches of the court who had denied such protection to live-in couples and stated that, “with due respect to the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches, who have denied protection to couples who are in live in relationship, this court is unable to adopt the same view.”

Without evaluating the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, the court disposed the petition while directing Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda to decide the representation of the petitioners within 1 week of receiving a copy of the court’s order and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

A similar view was taken by a bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur while granting protection to a couple in a live-in relationship. On the other hand, vide order dated May 11, bench of Justice HS Madaan denied protection to a live-in couple calling their live-in relationship morally and socially unacceptable.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Live-in relationships may not be acceptable to all, but not illegal: Punjab & Haryana HC
Woman embraces Islam and marries a Muslim, Jammu & Kashmir HC grants protection
Social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing: Punjab & Haryana HC grants protection

The post It will be travesty of justice of protection is denied to live-in couples: Punjab & Haryana HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over the past few days, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been seized with several petitions filed by young runaway couples who fear reprisal from their families. In yet another significant ruling, Justice Jaishree Thakur has granted protection to a couple in a live-in relationship while holding that such relationships are not illegal in India.

The Single-judge Bench was hearing a plea filed by a 22-year-old woman and a 19-year-old man who moved in together till such time as they could solemnise their marriage, i.e., as and when the man attains the marriageable age of 21. They submitted before the court that both belonged to different castes, and that they approached the court for protection because they feared that there was a threat to their life as the relationship was not acceptable to the woman’s family.

The couple clarified that they did not file a plea seeking permission to marry or for approval of their relationship. They requested the court to issue direction to the woman’s family members to restrain themselves from interfering in their peaceful live-in relationship.

Court’s observations

Justice Thakur referred to some judicial precedents while noting that courts have provided protection to some runaway couples, even though they were not married and were in a live-in relationship, and in some cases where the marriage was invalid as one of the parties though a major, was not of appropriate age as per section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act (18 years for women, 21 years for men).

In this context, the High Court held that, “The concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence.”

Considering the facts of this case, Justice Jaishree added, “It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage, and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons from whom protection is sought. In case such a course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to uphold the Rule of law.”

Justice Thakur refused to interfere or judge the couple’s personal decision as both of them are adults. The Court also said that one cannot also lose sight of honour killings which are prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. “Honour killing is a result of people marrying without their family’s acceptance, and sometimes for marrying outside their caste or religion”, Justice Thakur added.

She held that once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause hindrance to their peaceful existence. The State at this juncture, must ensure their protection and their personal liberty.

Finally, the Court disposed of the petition with directions to the State to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of one week and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

In related news, as SabrangIndia had previously reported, Justice Sudhir Mittal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted protection to a live-in couple and noted that social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing. Justice Mittal also ruled that live-in relationships are not prohibited in law, nor does it amount to the commission of any offence.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing: Punjab & Haryana HC grants protection
Live-in relationship is morally and socially unacceptable: Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab and Haryana HC suggest safe houses for inter-caste couples

The post Live-in relationships may not be acceptable to all, but not illegal: Punjab & Haryana HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted protection to a married couple, after the woman alleged that they have been receiving death threats after she embraced Islam and married a Muslim man.

Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey said, “..in order to ensure protection to the life of the petitioners in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it has become necessary to direct respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the petitioners are not harassed/attacked/kidnapped or caused any harm by respondents 6 and 7 or by anyone at their instance and they shall be allowed to live their married life the way they like and protect their rights in terms of the guarantee as enshrined by the Constitution of India.”

The woman submitted before the court that she, on her own free will without any force and with her sound mind converted to Islam. To prove that the married couple are adults, the court recorded the date of birth certificates issued by the Board of School Education which showed that the woman is 26 years old and the man is 32 years of age.

During the hearing, she contended that it was very difficult for her to appear before the High Court and that she managed through her friends in Jammu. The court also recorded in its order, “She submits that there is a persistent threat to her life as also of the petitioner no. 2 (husband) as she has married petitioner no. 2 to the disliking of respondents 6 and 7 (woman’s parents) and it is on their instance that a large number of people are bent upon to kill the petitioners.”

She claimed that as soon as the news of her conversion came to the knowledge of her family, they started threatening her and the husband. The court also noted that an FIR was registered against the couple at Satwari Police Station by the parents of the woman but directed the SHO of Police Station Satwari, Jammu to not take any coercive steps against them.

The matter has been listed on May 28.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing: Punjab & Haryana HC grants protection
Punjab & Haryana HC says interfaith marriage invalid as Muslim woman did not convert

The post Woman embraces Islam and marries a Muslim, Jammu & Kashmir HC grants protection appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted protection to a married couple, after the woman alleged that they have been receiving death threats after she embraced Islam and married a Muslim man.

Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey said, “..in order to ensure protection to the life of the petitioners in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it has become necessary to direct respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the petitioners are not harassed/attacked/kidnapped or caused any harm by respondents 6 and 7 or by anyone at their instance and they shall be allowed to live their married life the way they like and protect their rights in terms of the guarantee as enshrined by the Constitution of India.”

The woman submitted before the court that she, on her own free will without any force and with her sound mind converted to Islam. To prove that the married couple are adults, the court recorded the date of birth certificates issued by the Board of School Education which showed that the woman is 26 years old and the man is 32 years of age.

During the hearing, she contended that it was very difficult for her to appear before the High Court and that she managed through her friends in Jammu. The court also recorded in its order, “She submits that there is a persistent threat to her life as also of the petitioner no. 2 (husband) as she has married petitioner no. 2 to the disliking of respondents 6 and 7 (woman’s parents) and it is on their instance that a large number of people are bent upon to kill the petitioners.”

She claimed that as soon as the news of her conversion came to the knowledge of her family, they started threatening her and the husband. The court also noted that an FIR was registered against the couple at Satwari Police Station by the parents of the woman but directed the SHO of Police Station Satwari, Jammu to not take any coercive steps against them.

The matter has been listed on May 28.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing: Punjab & Haryana HC grants protection
Punjab & Haryana HC says interfaith marriage invalid as Muslim woman did not convert

The post Woman embraces Islam and marries a Muslim, Jammu & Kashmir HC grants protection appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted protection to a couple in a live-in relationship against the adult woman’s parents wishes who have been allegedly threatening to physically harm them.

Justice Sudhir Mittal held that Right to Life and Liberty includes the right to choose a partner of his/her choice and that the “individual also has the right to formalise the relationship with the partner through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach of a live-in relationship.”

While noting that “social acceptance for live-in-relationships is on the increase”, Justice Mittal said that the concept of live-in-relationships has crept into our society from western nations and initially, found acceptance in the metropolitan cities, probably because, individuals felt that formalisation of a relationship through marriage was not necessary for complete fulfilment.

Contrary to what the state counsel argued, Justice Mittal ruled that live-in relationships are not prohibited in law nor does it amount to the commission of any offence. “The law postulates that the life and liberty of every individual is precious and must be protected irrespective of individual views”, read the order.

In order to further examine the issue, the court drew parallels between married couples and couples in a live-in relationship who choose their respective partners against the wishes of their parents. He observed that if married couples are entitled to protection, live-in couples are entitled to the same relief.  

Justice Sudhir Mittal asked,  “The Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples, who have married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek protection of life and liberty from their parents and family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical situation exists where the couple has entered into a live-in-relationship. The only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference?”

He continued, “In my considered opinion, it would not. The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both situations and not from the society. They are thus entitled to the same relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country governed by Rule of Law.”

Accordingly, the court directed the police to grant protection to the couple and “ensure that no harm comes either to the lives or liberty of the petitioners”.

This significant order comes days after the same High Court’s Single-judge Bench of Justice HS Madaan refused to grant protection to a couple living together, calling their relationship morally and socially unacceptable. Another Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal had denied protection to a couple where the couple was 18 to 21 years old stating that if such protection is granted the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed.

Similarly in March, Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan dismissed the plea of two live-in partners seeking protection after holding that their live-in relationship contract clearly mentioned that it was not a marital relationship which was a “misuse of process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society”.

The order authored by Justice Sudhir Mittal may be read here: 

Related:

Live-in relationship is morally and socially unacceptable: Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab and Haryana HC suggest safe houses for inter-caste couples
Punjab & Haryana HC says interfaith marriage invalid as Muslim woman did not convert
Punjab and Haryana HC refuses to grant protection to live-in couple

The post Social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing: Punjab & Haryana HC grants protection appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After blatantly communalising the narrative in the Palghar lynching case and even going on to accuse the Congress Party of involvement in the case Arnab Goswami found himself seeking the mercy of the Supreme Court when a series of FIRs were filed against him across the country. The FIRs spelled charges under under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 500, 504, 505 etc of the Indian Penal Code.

Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the state of Maharashtra said that Goswami’s statements during the show were highly provocative, and that not only did Goswami communalise the Palghar incident, he also made visious and tarnishing comments against Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi.

It may be mentioned that Goswami and his wife were attacked on the mid-night of April 23, while traveling back from their news studio. Goswami had then alleged that the attack was committed by Youth Congress members at the behest of the party’s top leadership. While the Press Council of India did issue a statement, purportedly in his support, many see the words in the statement as left-handed and actually an example of epic trolling. The statement said, “Violence is not the answer even against bad journalism.”

Meanwhile back at the SC proceedings, Arnab’s lawyer Mukul Rohatgi tried to paint Goswami as the victim saying FIRs had been filed against him in Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Telangana and many other places in a clear bid to harass him. He said, “I have impleaded the States. I can implead the complaints also. Could not do, so since I had to file in one day because of the murderous attack on my client and his wife.”

He also tried to justify Goswami’s communal vitriol by saying questions needed to be raised in a public debate.

SC bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah to consider shortly the writ petition filed by Republic TV Editor-in-Chief, #ArnabGoswami, seeking to quash the FIRs registered against him in various states over his news debate on #PalgharMobLynching case.@republic pic.twitter.com/4y7nFETGdg

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 24, 2020

A writ Petition was filed by Goswami in the Supreme Court, under Article 32, for quashing all of these FIRs filed across the country. Goswami, in his petition, contended that the FIRs have been filed in gross violation of his right to freedom of speech and right to liberty. In the petition, Goswami prayed that no coercive action be taken against him with respect to the FIRs already filed and which may be filed in the future basis the same show and similar charges. It was also prayed that security be provided to Goswami, his family and his colleagues as he alleges that he was attacked by Congress Youth Wing workers on his way to his home from studio. It was further prayed that no cognizance be taken of any complaint or FIR on the cause of action in this case.

But Kapil Sibal countered Goswami’s attempt to hide communalism behind the ‘freedom of speech’argument saying, “You are trying to ignite communal violence here by putting Hindus against minority.” He further asked if Goswami had some special privileges that FIRs could not be filed against him. The FIRs have been filed in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, by the state’s Health Minister, T.S. Singh Deo and state Congress president Mohan Markam; another one in Raipur by Congress district President Girish Dubey; in Nagpur, Maharashtra by the state’s Power Minister Nitin Raut; in Bihar by Congress leader Kokab Kadri; in Punjab by Harmohinder Singh Grover and so on.

The  Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, after hearing the arguments, ordered that no coercive action be taken against Goswami for three weeks and that he be permitted to file anticipatory bail application before trial court or the High Court. The Court also ordered that all FIRs, except the one filed in Nagpur be stayed until further orders and any other FIR which may be filed on same cause of action will also remain stayed.

The Nagpur FIR was filed on April 22 in response to a complaint filed by Maharashtra Power Minister Nitin Raut. The FIR includes charges of giving provocation with intent to cause riot, promoting enmity between two groups on grounds of religion or race, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs and defamation under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Further, the bench also directed Police Commissioner, Mumbai to give protection to Republic TV Office and to Goswami and also asked Goswami to cooperate with the investigation.

Related:

BREAKING: CJP helps in getting 9 people released from Assam Detention Camps
BJP spreading virus of communal prejudice & hatred: Sonia Gandhi
Kerala HC calls bail condition requiring cash deposit in PM CARES, improper and unjust

The post SC grants Arnab Goswami protection from coercive action for three weeks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Published by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, a recent report, “Annual Report: Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS)”, has found that 87.7% of Gujarat wage or salaried employees in the non-agricultural sector work “without job contract”, which is the second highest among 21 major states, next to Karnataka (94.2%).

Based on a survey carried out across India between July 2017and June 2018, the report has also found that Gujarat’s 66.8% workers in the same category are “not eligible for paid leave”, which is again the second highest in India, next only to Rajasthan (68.4%), and the state’s 55.9% workers do not get “any social security benefit”, which is fifth worst following Andhra Pradesh (62.7%), Rajasthan (61.1%), Punjab (60.8%) and West Bengal (59.2%).
 

 

 

The all-India average for lack of protection to its workers is, no doubt, poor, but not as bad as the one finds in Gujarat. Thus, as against Gujarat’s 87.7%, the report says, in India, among regular wage/salaried employees in the non-agriculture sector, 71.1 per cent do no have a written job contract.
 

 

The post Whither protection? 88% Gujarat employees without job contract, 67% sans paid leave appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Senior counsel Raju Ramachandran mentioned the matter before Chief Justice, TS Thakur who permitted it to be raised before justice Chalmeshwar and Sapre hearing the petition filed by activist ND Jayaprakash on February 16, 2016. The matter will be heard on an urgent basis on February 19, 2016.

In the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Kanhaiya Kumar has sought the grant of bail and release from custody under Article32 of the Constitution of India based on the exceptional and unprecedented break down of justice delivery mechanism and administration of justice in the Sessions Court at Tees Hazari, even after the Supreme Court of India had been seized of the matter (February 15, 2016).

The petition submits that it is evident that there is a threat to the life and limb of the petitioner, which also extends to the counsels appearing on his behalf, as well the person(s) who would be required to stand as surety/sureties on his behalf, in the event of appearance before the Patiala House Court. The petition has been filed through professor Himanshu Pandey, resident warden of the Jhelum hostel at the university. The respondents is the NCT, Delhi.

The petition states that the reason for approaching the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 32 directly (for bail and release of custody) is due to the surcharged atmosphere of violence at the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, within whose jurisdiction the present case is pending, and the physical violence and intimidation faced by the Kanhaiya Kumar, 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.

During these proceedings, between February 15 and 17, 2016, the petitioner and other students belonging to JNU, as well as journalists, were physically assaulted by a group of lawyers. Kanhaiya Kumar states in his petition that the manner in which physical harassment of the petitioner was allowed to take place, was in clear violation of the fundamental right to access to the justice system. This petition therefore raises issues regarding the violation of rights under Article 21. 

Kanhaiya Kumar is a citizen of India and a student of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi (“JNU”), and the President of the JNU Students Union.

Brief Background
FIR No. 110/2016, under Sections 124A/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner, Kanhaiya Kumar, and other unknown persons. The same day, the Petitioner was arrested by the police.

On February 12, 2016,Kanhaiya Kumar was remanded to police custody for 3 days, by the order of Shri Loveleen, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, Delhi.

On February 15, 2016, Kanhaiya Kumar was sought to be produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate. However, due to the incidents of violence that took place at the court premises, carried out by members of the legal fraternity, in which journalists, students and senior faculty members of the Jawaharlal Nehru University were physically assaulted, the petitioner was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, at another location, and was remanded to two days’ police custody.

Again, on February 16, Writ Petition Criminal No. 25/2016, titled as ‘N.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India &Anr.’, was filed before this Hon’ble Court, seeking appropriate directions to the Respondents to ensure a proper and decorous conduct of the remand proceedings, in light of the incidents that took place on February 15, 2016.

On February 17, 2016, after hearing the counsels for Jayaprakash in the abovementioned Writ Petition, the Supreme Court passed directions instructing the Commissioner of the Delhi Police to ensure the safety of the Petitioner (Kanhaiya Kumar) at the time of the remand proceedings to be held that day.

However, despite the specific directions by the Supreme Court, the Delhi Police failed to adequately protect the petitioner, a student leader, at the time of his production for remand proceedings, and he was violently assaulted by the gathered crowd of lawyers, while being taken for remand proceedings, and later by one person inside the courtroom. Following the incidents of the assault, as well as the observable threat to the life and security of the petitioner, his counsels, and the journalists present inside the court, the matter was mentioned before the Supreme Court at 2:15 pm on an urgent basis, following which the Supreme Court deputed five senior members of the Bar to observe the situation at Patiala House and report back to it, that is the Supreme Court.

As was widely reported by the media that even at the time when the senior members of the Bar (appointed as Commissioners of the Supreme Court) visited the Patiala House Court premises, the atmosphere of violence and intimidation continued unabated, and that the visiting team was also attacked by a group of lawyers and other persons while returning to the Supreme Court after, the Metropolitan Magistrate remanded the Petitioner to judicial custody for a period of 14 days.

Kanhaiya Kumar has relied on the following grounds to justify his plea before the Supreme Court:
 
On the need for an Article 32 Petition:

— That the environment at the Patiala House Courts complex is not conducive for fair hearing, much less for a fair trial. In these circumstances, the petitioner, his next friend (pairokar) as well as his lawyers fear the safety of their life and limb and are unable to present his case before the concerned court of law.

—That there are elements bent upon intimidating the lawyers and next friend of the petitioner and preventing them from doing their duty. It was for this reason that while the petitioner was brought to the Patiala Court house, he was thrashed inside the court room (adjacent to Court room no. 4) as well as in the Court premises. This also shows a grave dereliction on part of those who are generally responsible for ensuring free access to justice and fair trial, and specifically those who were under the writ of the Supreme Court to obey, comply and carry out the orders of the Supreme Court.

–The failure on part of these authorities in their peremptory and most sacrosanct duty to carry out the orders of the Supreme Court is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner as well as Art. 144 of the Constitution of India (which mandates and enjoins all authorities civil and judicial to act in aid of the Supreme Court of India).

–The situation prevailing yesterday (February 17, 2016) in the Patiala House Courts, is an affront to a citizen’s fundamental and human right of access to justice. It is also clearly a violation of the fundamental rights of lawyers to represent their client.

–The petitioner is an innocent person, and his presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. However, the mob at the Court complex was ready to lynch the petitioner as if the petitioner is guilty, which erodes a citizen’s faith in the justice delivery mechanism established under the laws by our Constitution. It is incumbent on the Supreme Court as the Guardian of the rights of we the people, to safeguard these rights and to reinstate such faith of a citizen of India. 

–That since the security granted by the Supreme Court was limited to Court room no. 4, and given the prevailing situation; the lawyers representing the petitioner were in no position to move the Sessions Court for his bail.  His lawyers remained under seige till 7 pm, as the Delhi Police was not able to provide security to them for safe exit and kept saying that they are waiting for “enough force” before they could provide a safe exit to lawyers.

–That there has been a repeated break down of law and order machinery at the Patiala House Court complex, both before and after the order of the Supreme Court. It is most serious and egregious that such breakdown did not cease even after the Supreme Court had been seized of the matter. The situation as it prevails, does not inspire any confidence in the petitioner and violates his right and aspiration of Justice not only be done, but seem to have been done. The petitioner’s right of access to justice is gravely and severely impeded.

–That therefore the present circumstances are exceptional and call for an exceptional remedy. No other remedy virtually remains for the Petitioner, for the fear of the safety of his life and limb, and it is under these exceptional circumstances that he has directly approached the Supreme Court of India.

 On petitioner Kanhaiya Kumar’s release the petition states:

–That the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated.

–The police does not require the custody of the accused for any further investigation and he has been presently been sent to judicial custody.

—There are reports in public by the Delhi Police which state that no concrete evidence has been found against the petitioner.

—Under these circumstances, the petitioner prays for his release by the order of the Supreme Court by its extraordinary and most exceptional writ under Article  32 of the Constitution of India.

—That the petitioner had moved application before the Court concerned intimating the threat to his life and limb. The situation of dire threat to life of the petitioner still prevails and further incarceration of the petitioner in these circumstances is a constant threat to his life.  The petitioner perceives a threat to his life in the prison where there is a great likelihood of an attack on him by his co-prisoners.

–That the petitioner is a student of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi and not some hardened criminal. No prejudice would be caused to any one, much less the prosecution if the petitioner is released on bail.

–That the petitioner is willing to abide by all conditions as may be imposed in the interest of justice, for his release on bail.
It is under these peculiar and unique circumstances that Kanhaiya Kumar has prayed for the grant of bail to him to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Hon’ble Court;

Besides he has prayed for necessary directions to be passed to ensure and safeguard his life and limb.

The post Plea for Freedom: SC to hear Kanhaiya Kumar’s petition for Bail and Protection appeared first on SabrangIndia.