The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the three lawyers, who allegedly assaulted Jawaharlal Nehru University students’ union leader Kanhaiya Kumar, and sought a response on why a contempt proceeding was not initiated against them.
The apex court had on Thursday agreed to hear a plea for initiation of contempt proceedings against Vikram Singh Chauhan, Yashpal Singh and Om Sharma who were caught on camera admitting to have attacked Kumar and others when he was produced in the Patiala House court complex last week.
The SC also issued a notice to the Centre and Delhi Police on a petition seeking an SIT probe of Patiala House court violence during JNU row hearing. Several journalists, as well as Kumar, who has been arrested on sedition charges, were assaulted in the court premises on February 15 and 17.
Kamini Jaiswal, in the PIL filed on Wednesday, has sought initiation of suo motu contempt against three lawyers for allegedly interfering in the administration of justice and wilfully violating the apex court’s February 17 order. Alleging “complete inaction of Delhi Police” in the face of violence by a section of lawyers and others, the PIL has referred to the February 18 report by the six-member lawyers’ panel sent by the apex court on February 17 to take stock of the situation, the February 19 report by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), a sting operation by a news channel and an eyewitness account of violence by a judicial officer.
The PIL said the three advocates were found to be leading an attack in two incidents as reported by the media and allegedly admitted by them in a sting operation. They have not only been identified but they also admitted to their involvement in the incidents of violence but still police did not make any attempt to arrest them, the petitioner contended.
The petition quoted a first-hand account by a journalist who talked about the blatant mockery of the judicial process and quoted the assailants as saying “Ab le aao SC ko apne saath, kahan gaya SC is waqt (Now bring the Supreme Court with you, where is the Supreme Court right now).” “The atmosphere, to say the least, not being at all congenial, was surcharged, threatening, and frightening and police had completely failed in its duty to contain the atmosphere and crowd,” the petitioner said quoting the February 18 report by the lawyers panel submitted to the apex court. Source: Agencies