JNU students Umar KHalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, accused of raising “anti- national” slogans during a protest in the university last week, have now been asked to surrender and “follow due procedure” by the Delhi High Court. The court declined to pass any orders on their plea for “safe surrender” and will now hear the matter in detail again on Wednesday. The duo filed pleas seeking permission to surrender before the Delhi High Court and “safe passage” from the University campus to the court premises, alleging that there was “threat to their life and limb”.
Referring to last week’s attack on media personnel and JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar in the premises of the Patiala house courts by lawyers and other persons, the pleas also claim that they fear that they would be attacked if they were to be taken to the Patiala house court, and alleged that the petitioner is more vulnerable to unprovoked attacks from a frenzied public than Kanhaiya Kumar.” With the police presence having been removed from the Delhi High Court premises after the hearing in the Kanhaiya Kumar bail case on Tuesday morning, the surrender pleas were taken up by the court after 4 PM, with police personnel being brought back. Entry into the courtroom was again restricted, with only five reporters and a handful of lawyers being permitted to enter. During the hearing, Advocate Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for the JNU students told the bench of Justice Pratibha Rani that the students had to file the surrender application due to “exceptional circumstances” having been created. She pointed out that JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar had been beaten up while in police custody, and that sting operations shown in the media had indicated that a section of lawyers was “ready to attack” the other students involved in the JNU protests. She also argued for “permission for peaceful surrender before the Delhi High court.” The judge, who refused to allow any arguments from lawyers representing the Delhi police or the Delhi government, asked the counsel for the JNU students to write down a name and place for their surrender, she also asked the petitioners to indicate which lawyers would be accompanying the duo during the surrender process.
The submissions made by the lawyers were objected to by the DCP present in the courtroom, following which the judge called the DCP and the lawyers for the petitioner to her chamber, and held a closed hearing. The court has now indicated that it will hear the matter in detail again on wednesday, and declined to pass any orders when Jaiswal raised arguments for ïnterim protection.” The bench also declined to pass orders for “security” during police remand of the duo, observing that the trial court would be looking into Police remand, and that person arrested by the police has to produced before the trial court within 24 hours. “This cannot be by whims and fancies. let us go step by step,”said the judge.