JNU student leader Kanhaiya Kumar today failed to get relief from the Supreme Court which refused to hear his bail plea on the ground it will set a "dangerous precedent" and asked him to approach the Delhi High Court, which he did without immediate hearing on it.
Escorted by police, Kanhaiya's lawyers Sushil Bajaj and Vrinda Grover rushed to the high court's Registrar and mentioned the petition.
Security was beefed up in the High Court, not far away from the Patiala House Courts, which was the scene of attack unruly lawyers on Kumar and journalists on Monday and Wednesday.
Also Read
There appeared to be some technical glitches in the petition for which some rectification papers have been sought. High Court sources said the bail plea may come up for hearing either Monday or Tuesday.
Earlier, the drama surrounding the high-profile accused Kanhaiya Kumar, who has been slapped with sedition charges, took a new turn when the Supreme Court transferred the bail plea after declining to entertain it.
"You are leading a dangerous proposition. If this court will entertain it (bail plea bypassing courts below 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 the only court (to hear the matter), it would be a dangerous precedent," a bench comprising justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre said.
Further, it observed, "Remember, this is not the only case of this type."
Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar strongly opposed the hearing of the plea by the apex court saying a wrong message would go that the High Court is incapable looking into the matter.
He said the accused has appropriate alternative remedy and the matter should be considered according to that remedy.
The apex court bench 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.
They also submitted that they moved the highest 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, the SG, ASG Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Ajit K Sinha, who said the facts in the writ petition and the bail plea are different. They opposed it being heard directly by the Supreme Court.
"What is under scrutiny is something different and the writ petition is to be heard on Monday. It is totally different from the bail application," the bench observed.
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.
The bench then asked, "Is it so in the high court? Are we to understand that the lawyers in HC are also agitated?"
While concluding the 90-minute hearing, the bench said, "We permit them to make and amend the bail application today itself."
While transferring the bail plea, 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 team 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. It permitted the counsel for Kanhaiya to amend his petition.
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 the reply was in the negative, the bench asked the counsel, "Why are you rushing here?"
Ramachandran responded saying the incident of February 17 does not require recounting. That is why they are before the apex court, he said.
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.
"For me to go to any sessions court in Delhi is impractical, unsafe, dangerous to me as accused, dangerous to me as a lawyer who performs professional duty in a 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 his statutory right to apply for bail and against the experience of the past few days there was a feeling that there was denial of access to justice to his client.
He said he approached this court for the bail as it was already seized of the matter concerning access to justice for Kanhaiya Kumar and he was seeking the court's 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 was some commotion 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.
