Delhi court grants bail to 2 law students who disrupted SC proceedings

A Delhi court on Monday granted bail to two law students accused of assaulting a public servant and disrupting proceedings inside the Supreme Court earlier this month, observing that while it disapproves of their conduct, the offences were not “heinous” and did not require pretrial detention

A Delhi court on Monday granted bail to two law students accused of assaulting a public servant and disrupting proceedings inside the Supreme Court earlier this month, observing that while it disapproves of their conduct, the offences were not “heinous” and did not require pretrial detention.

(Shutterstock)

Judicial Magistrate First Class Ravi of Patiala House Courts was hearing the bail plea of a 24-year-old, third-year law student and a resident of Etawah district in Uttar Pradesh and a second-year law student (23), a resident of Rae Bareli.

In an incident that took place on July 10 at Court no. 13, the 24-year-old, while appearing as a petitioner-in-person, intentionally disrupted the court proceedings by “using abusive and unparliamentary language, throwing papers inside the courtroom, and creating disorder,” according to the FIR. Police said that when security personnel attempted to reimpose decorum and restrain him, “the accused used force on the complainant”. The other student was also taken in custody for abetting the conduct.

On Tuesday, the court observed that the offences carried a maximum punishment of two years and Delhi Police, the investigating agency,itself claimed that the probe regarding the two accused was complete.

Granting them bail on a personal bond of ₹25,000, the court said that the prosecution had failed to prove that the offences were grave in nature so as to justify pretrial detention.

In its order, the court said, “A litigant, howsoever aggrieved by the outcome of his cause or howsoever unrepresented, does not thereby acquire license to hurl papers in open court or direct abuse language at the presiding authority, much less at the office of the Chief Justice of India, an institution that stands as the final guarantor of the very rights and liberties that every citizen, including the accused, invokes when knocking on the doors of the judiciary.”

If allowed to pass unremarked, the court noted, a conduct of such a nature carried the risk of being perceived tacitly as acceptable. The court said that it was necessary to state clearly as part of the record of the proceedings, that such conduct was not condoned and stood unequivocally deprecated.

“It is expected that the accused will in future conduct themselves before this or any other court with the restraint and decorum that the administration of justice necessarily demands,” the order said.

The court further observed that the Supreme Court itself had dealt with the matter with considerable equanimity, avoiding to take any action against the petitioner. “An institution of the stature and permanence of the Supreme Court of India is not diminished by the intemperate conduct of a single agitated, unrepresented litigant, and it is only appropriate that subordinate courts, in assessing the consequences that ought to flow from such conduct at the stage of bail, be guided by the same institutional restraint and equanimity that the highest court itself has demonstrated.”

Defence counsel Vinod Kumar Dubey argued that the accused had no prior criminal antecedents and that the incident arose out of a highly charged, unstructured emotional outburst and not out of any pre-meditated design.

On July 10, the third-year law student was appearing before a bench of Supreme Court justices KV Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe in a petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order that had dismissed his plea against the conversion of his application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into a private complaint.

During the hearing, the student repeatedly referred to the judges as “judicial servants” and claimed that he was “sovereign”. He was purportedly heard telling the bench, “Mister judicial servant, I order you to order the registration of an FIR against ACP Vikas Nagar, Lucknow.”

Justice Viswanathan, taken aback, responded, “You are ordering us?”

The situation escalated after the 24-year-old allegedly threw case papers into the air and used abusive language while referring to the chief justice. He was subsequently escorted out of the courtroom by security personnel.

An FIR was registered against the two accused under Sections 132 (assault or criminal force on a public servant), 221 (obstructing a public servant in discharge of public functions), 224 (threat of injury to a public servant) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on the complaint of Supreme Court security staff at Tilak Marg Police Station.

The bench, however, declined to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner.

“We, considering the condition of the petitioner, do not propose to take any action against him,” the bench observed.

On the merits of the case, the bench found no reason to interfere with the Allahabad High Court’s order.

“The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications for permission to appear and argue in person and permission to file petition(s) shall also stand disposed of,” the bench said.