Lawyers take out protest march in Delhi against ‘anti-nationals’
Hundreds of lawyers took out a march from Patiala House to India Gate on Friday in solidarity with Vikram Chauhan and others who led the protests at the court against ‘anti-nationals’ in Delhi.JNU protests Updated: Feb 19, 2016 17:52 IST
Hundreds of lawyers took out a march from Patiala House to India Gate on Friday in solidarity with Vikram Chauhan and others who led the protests at the court in Delhi.
Shouting slogans of “Vande Mataram” and “Pakistan murdabad”, the lawyers waved Indian flags to mark their opposition to “anti-nationals”.
“Desh ke gaddaron ko bilkul nahi baksha jayega (Traitors of the country will never be forgiven),” said a lawyer in the protest march.
“No one knows better about the law than lawyers do and according to law, Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khalid are terrorists,” said Suresh Sinha, another lawyer, while others carried a symbolic effigy of the JNU student leader.
The march reportedly called by the prime instigator of violence against JNU students’ union president Kanhaiya Kumar and journalists at the court on Monday and Wednesday comes a day after a group of lawyers felicitated Vikram Chauhan.
Sources said the Shahdara Bar Association took out a candle march outside gate number of five of the Karkardooma court at 4pm on Thursday, which was attended by Chauhan. The president of the bar garlanded Chauhan and said, “Shahdra Bar apke sath hai (The Shahdra Bar is with you)”, sources said.
However, the District Bar Coordination Committee (DBCC) condemned the violence at Patiala House but insisted that the perpetrators were “outsiders” dressed as lawyers.
“The coordination committee strongly protests the defamatory/derogatory statements made against the legal fraternity without any proper inquiry,” the DBCC said in a statement on Thursday.
Meanwhile, Kanhaiya Kumar, who was charged with sedition for alleged anti-India slogans at the university and sent to 14-day judicial custody, moved Delhi high court registry for bail on Friday.
He earlier applied for bail from the Supreme Court, but the latter refused entertain the plea noting that assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the case would send a wrong impression to lower courts that they are “incapable” of handling the matter.