The hearing on pleas seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar on Thursday witnessed a confrontation between the AAP government and Delhi Police in the Delhi High Court over the issue of representing the state.
According to PTI, during the hearing before a bench of Justice P S Teji, Delhi government’s senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra objected to the presence of advocates Shailendra Babbar and Anil Soni, who were appointed as special public prosecutors (SPPs) for representing the Delhi Police in the matter.
“I am objecting to their presence,” Mehra told the bench after which Babbar said they have been appointed as SPPs by the Lieutenant Governor to represent police in the matter.
The court, however, directed both of them to file their replies within four weeks on the pleas seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to Kanhaiya for allegedly violating bail conditions.
“Say whatever you both want to say in your replies. I want everything in black and white,” the court said.
“It would be in the interest of justice that replies be filed by both Rahul Mehra and Shailendra Babbar within four weeks,” the court said and fixed the matter for hearing on July 19.
During the hearing, Mehra told the bench that the petitioners have to first satisfy the court about their locus in filing such petition.
After Mehra raised the issue of locus of the petitioners, the bench said, “Let us have the replies first. Whatever you want to say, say in your replies.”
“These objections (raised by Mehra on the locus of petitioners and presence of SPPs appearing for the police) cannot be entertained orally,” the bench said.
AAP government had earlier told the court that there was no violation of any bail condition by the student leader.
The police had earlier said that it cannot comment on the pleas seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to Kanhaiya without verifying facts and they were investigating whether any bail condition was violated.
Separate pleas have been filed in the high court seeking cancellation of interim bail to Kanhaiya on the ground that his speech after his release from Tihar Jail here in March was “anti-national” and he had violated the bail conditions.
Besides seeking cancellation of interim bail, one of the petitioners has moved another plea for initiation of perjury proceedings against Kanhaiya alleging that he had “deliberately and wilfully filed a false affidavit” before the court while securing the relief.
Kanhaiya, who was granted six months interim bail on March 2 by the high court, is facing sedition charge in connection with an event at JNU on February 9 where anti-national slogans were allegedly raised and Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru hailed as a ‘martyr’.