‘No urgency’: Court refuses to hear Parliament breach accused Neelam Azad's plea
A vacation bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “It’ll be taken up on the 3rd. There is no urgency. Nothing absolutely.”
The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to hear a plea by Neelam Azad, one of the accused arrested in the Parliament security breach case, challenging her police remand. The court said there was no urgency.
A vacation bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “It’ll be taken up on the 3rd. There is no urgency. Nothing absolutely.”
Azad moved the Delhi HC seeking immediate release on Wednesday challenging the legality of the December 21 remand order. Azad said in her plea that she was not allowed to consult a legal practitioner of her choice to defend her during the proceeding of the remand and one was only provided to her 29 hours after her arrest.
Azad was residing in Hisar for advanced studies. A 37-year-old resident of Ghaso Khurd village, Azad had gone to Hisar 5-6 months before her arrest to prepare for the Haryana civil services examination.
The plea, which was filed through lawyer Suresh Kumar, read, “Upon her arrest, the petitioner’s family wasn’t informed. It was informed only in the evening of 14.12.2023. Further, she wasn’t permitted to meet any person including advocates which is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Even at the court a single DLSA (Delhi Legal Services Authority) counsel was appointed to all the accused persons without giving them any choice among counsels.”
According to Indian laws, an individual in custody or someone acting on their behalf has the right to file a habeas corpus petition in either a high court or the Supreme Court to secure their appearance if they believe they are being held unlawfully. If, upon examination, the respective court determines that the detention is indeed illegal, it has the authority to issue an order for the person's release.
The plea added, “The remand order dated 21.12.2023 is illegal and violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India which mandates the accused person to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice whereas in the present case the petitioner’s advocate wasn’t permitted to take instructions and defend the petitioner prior to the disposal of the remand application.”
Recently, the high court halted a trial court’s order to provide a copy of the FIR to Azad, citing the case's "sensitive nature". Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court highlighted that FIRs related to sexual offences, insurgency, terrorism, and those falling under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act should not be uploaded on the authorities' website.
On December 13, on the anniversary of 2001 Parliament terror attack, Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D breached security, entering the Lok Sabha chamber, releasing yellow gas, and shouting slogans.
Simultaneously, Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad sprayed coloured gas outside the Parliament House premises, chanting "tanashahi nahi chalegi". In addition to the four accused, Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat have also been arrested and are undergoing police interrogation.