look news india
During the hearing of the sensitive and much-discussed case related to student protest in the country’s highest court i.e. the Supreme Court, once again very heated debates and dramatic incidents were witnessed. The atmosphere inside the courtroom became heated when senior advocate Prashant Bhushan directly questioned the impartiality and credibility of a member of the high powered committee formed to monitor the case. Expressing strong objection to this objectionable step taken by Prashant Bhushan, the Solicitor General, representing the Central Government, retaliated sharply and said that the working style of the petitioner party is such that if seen from their perspective, they see the entire system and every person as ‘dishonest’ except for a few selected people. The heated debate between the two sides during this high-profile hearing has created a stir in the judicial corridors, as this entire matter is deeply related to the country’s law and order, students’ rights and administrative transparency.
During this important hearing going on in the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General officially informed the court that the High Powered Committee constituted as per the instructions of the Supreme Court for impartial investigation and resolution of various aspects and complaints related to the student protest, has now started its work with full activeness at the grassroots level. The court was also informed by the government that the next and very important meeting of this high-powered committee is proposed to be held on September 15, in which many important points will be discussed. However, as soon as the discussion started on the functioning of the committee and its functioning, the lawyers appearing for the petitioner side made a special request to the court that an independent amicus curiae or a responsible nodal officer should be immediately appointed to directly report to the Supreme Court on the functioning of this committee and its daily progress. The lawyers argued that if a nodal officer is appointed, not only will the court get accurate information about every step taken by the committee, but the common victim and other lawyers associated with the case will also be able to easily convey their views and documents to that committee.
During the hearing, when senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan questioned the impartiality of a specific member of the High Powered Committee and expressed doubt on his credibility, the heartbeats of everyone present in the courtroom increased. Responding immediately to this allegation of Prashant Bhushan, the Solicitor General lodged a strong objection and said in a sharp tone that it has become the tendency of the petitioner side to question the honesty of every institution and person except the people of their choice, as if according to them all the other people are dishonest. In the midst of this heated debate, Justice Bagchi, a respected member of the bench, intervened and made a very balanced and strong comment. Justice Bagchi said in clear words that this High Powered Committee has not been constituted by the Supreme Court in any hurry, but after very serious deliberations and brainstorming, hence it is not appropriate to raise unnecessary questions on its impartiality and dignity. This stand of the court made it clear that the judiciary is completely serious and firm regarding the functioning of the institutions constituted by it.
When the hearing proceeded in the court, another lawyer of the petitioner’s side presented an eyewitness of the incident of student protest and violent clash at Jantar Mantar directly before the court and strongly demanded that he be allowed to present his views. On this, the judges of the Supreme Court clarified that there is no need for any witness or victim to come to the court personally, because everyone can go before this newly created High Powered Committee with their complaint and present their views. In response, the lawyer raised the demand that there are many witnesses and victims who are feeling extremely unsafe, hence it is mandatory to have a special nodal officer to listen to their confidential stories and ensure their safety. The lawyer specifically cited that a 14-year-old minor girl is also a witness in this case and she too is feeling extremely unsafe at present. The Solicitor General also made a sharp attack on this demand and said that people who are active on social media five times a day are also calling themselves ‘unsafe witnesses’ whose identity is being said to be hidden, whereas if someone really wants to put forth his point, he can do so through the official secretary of the committee. Meanwhile, senior advocate Hariharan gave a constructive suggestion and said that if this committee starts a dedicated online portal for redressal of its complaints, then it will become very easy and transparent for the common people and victims from any corner of the country to directly convey their views to the committee.
During the hearing, the most sensitive and worrying issue raised was the continuous threats received by a 14-year-old minor girl. The lawyer told the court that the 14-year-old girl was being threatened with dire consequences, and what’s more, when the girl and her family took legal steps to get justice and lodged an FIR at the police station, in response, the bullies filed several false counter FIRs against the girl and her family. The lawyer alleged that the people who openly threatened the girl are still roaming outside without fear. On hearing this serious information, the Supreme Court’s temper rose and the court said in a strict tone that it cannot be accepted at all that a little girl pleading for her democratic rights and justice should be tortured in this way. The Supreme Court gave strict instructions and said that if necessary, police protection should be provided to the girl and her entire family with immediate effect. Also, the court has called for a detailed status report on this entire matter from the Uttar Pradesh government and the Delhi Police administration, making it clear that the judiciary is in no mood to tolerate any laxity on the safety of children and violation of their rights.
At the end of this marathon hearing related to the student protest case, another lawyer raised another important legal and administrative issue before the court. The counsel argued that while the students were protesting at Jantar Mantar or other places, many major metro stations of the city were closed by the administration suddenly and without any concrete reason, due to which the common citizens, working people and students had to face immense inconvenience. The lawyer termed the action of such closure of metro stations as completely illegal and a violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens and demanded that the issue be heard in a separate and independent petition. Taking cognizance of this serious administrative issue, the court has issued a notice to the concerned parties, due to which there is every possibility of a big debate in the legal field in the coming days regarding administrative decisions and restrictions to be imposed during public movements.