Delhi Court Grants Bail to Law Students Accused of Disrupting Supreme Court
In a recent development, a Delhi court has granted bail to two law students, Prabal Pratap Singh and Chanderbhan, who were arrested for allegedly causing a disturbance during Supreme Court proceedings. The charges against them include using offensive language towards the Chief Justice of India (CJI), assaulting a security official, and disrupting judicial activities.
Singh, a third-year law student, and Chanderbhan, a second-year law student from Lucknow University, found themselves in legal trouble following an incident on July 10. The duo appeared in Court No. 13 of the Supreme Court as petitioners-in-person. According to the complaint lodged by a Supreme Court security officer, Singh, in a moment of anger, threw papers in the courtroom and directed abusive language at the Chief Justice of India. The situation escalated when a security official attempted to intervene, leading to allegations that Singh used force against the official, thereby obstructing him from performing his duties. Chanderbhan was accused of supporting Singh’s actions.
Court’s Strong Reprimand and Bail Decision
On July 27, Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ravi of the Patiala House Court issued a stern rebuke of the students’ conduct while granting them bail. The magistrate emphasized that no litigant, regardless of their dissatisfaction with a case outcome or their unrepresented status, is entitled to disrupt court proceedings or use abusive language, especially against the presiding judge or the office of the Chief Justice of India.
The court highlighted the potential dangers of tolerating such behavior, stressing that it could set a dangerous precedent if left unaddressed. However, the court also noted that the Supreme Court, which was the alleged victim of this misconduct, had shown significant restraint in its response. “An institution of the stature and permanence of the Supreme Court of India is not diminished by the intemperate conduct of a single agitated, unrepresented litigant,” the court remarked.
The court further stated that while the language used by the accused was severe, it did not justify indefinite pre-trial detention, especially given that the investigation was largely complete. The court made it clear that its observations were specific to the bail decision and would not affect the merits of the trial.
More Read
In conclusion, the court decided that continued detention of the accused was not legally justified and released them on bail. The decision reflects a balance between upholding the dignity of the judiciary and recognizing the rights of the accused during the pre-trial phase.
