"What were you inviting attention to? Why were you re- creating what Bhagat Singh did," a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Najmi Waziri asked during the hearing of the duo's plea against Assembly Speaker Ram Niwas Goel's order sending them to 30 days of rigorous imprisonment for their action.
The court also questioned the maintainability of their plea against the Speaker's June 28 decision as it was a habeas corpus petition and it did not assail the rules under which they were sent to jail for "breach of privilege and contempt of the House".
The court observed that the issue of illegal detention by the State, as alleged by the petitioners, was a "serious matter".
Since the petitioners, represented by advocate Pradeep Rana, had not challenged the rules under which the Speaker had taken the decision, the bench gave them time till tomorrow to decide what course of action, including amending their plea, they wished to take.
During the proceedings, the court asked the petitioners' lawyer how a habeas corpus can be maintainable in the instant situation.
If the constitutional validity of the rules was challenged, then too the matter may have to go before another bench, the court said.
The petitioners' lawyer, on the other hand, said a habeas corpus was maintainable as the detention of the two, Jagdeep Rana and Rajan Kumar Madan, was "illegal".
The two, who were sitting in the Visitors Gallery of the assembly, had hurled pamphlets and raised slogans demanding resignation of Delhi Health Minister Satyendar Jain.
The two detainees have alleged that the Speaker's June 28 decision was taken without hearing them and therefore, it was "absolutely illegal and violates the principles of natural justice" and have sought their immediate release. They have also contended that under the rules no rigorous imprisonment can be awarded.
Appearing for the Speaker, Delhi government standing counsel Rahul Mehra said the Speaker need not have heard them as the incident occurred in the presence of all legislators.
In their petition, the two claimed that their intention was to draw the attention of the government and AAP leaders to the "glaring issues of corruption" plaguing the party.
Jagdeep, who claims to be the Vice President of AAP's Delhi Unit, and Madan, who says he is incharge of the AAP for the states of Punjab and Chhattisgarh, have contended that no reason has been recorded for awarding them such a severe punishment.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
