1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRL) NO. ____________OF 2016
(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India)
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF:
KAMINI JAISWAL
43, Lawyers, Chamber,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi ­ 110001 
       … PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
THR.ITS SECRETARY
NORTH BLOCK
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT
NEW DELHI – 110001
2. DELHI POLICE
THR. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, 
I.P. ESTATE, ITO, 
NEW DELHI 
3. VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN
Advocate
Through;
Bar Council of India
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near BalBhawan,
New Delhi – 110 002
4. YASHPAL SINGH
Advocate
Through;
Bar Council of India
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near BalBhawan,
New Delhi – 110 002
5. OM SHARMA 
Advocate 
Through;

 2

Bar Council of India
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near BalBhawan,
New Delhi – 110 002

… RESPONDENTS

WRIT   PETITION   UNDER   ARTICLE   32   OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
ARTICLE   21   OF   THE   CONSTITUTION   OF
INDIA

 

SEEKING

 

WRIT/DIRECTIONS/ORDERS

APPROPRIATE
 

TO

INSTITUTE   A   SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION
TEAM   TO   INVESTIGATE   THE   INCIDENTS
OF   ATTACKS   ON   15.02.2016   AND
17.02.2016   BY   SOME   LAWYERS   IN   THE
PREMISES OF PATIALA HOUSE COURT ON
THE JOURNALIST, STUDENTS, TEACHERS,
DEFENCE   LAWYERS   AND   THE   ACCUSED
PERSON AND ALSO FOR ISSUANCE OF SUO
MOTO   CONTEMPT   PROCEEDING   AGAINST
THE   RESPONDENT   ADVOCATES   FOR
INTERFERING   IN   THE   ADMINISTRATION
OF   JUSTICE   AND   FOR   WILLFULLY
VIOLATING   THE   ORDERS   DATED
17.02.2016 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.
TO, 
THE HON‘BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION   JUDGES   OF   THE   SUPREME   COURT   OF
INDIA
THE   HUMBLE   PETITION   OF   THE   PETITIONER
ABOVENAMED 
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

 3

1.

That   the   present   Writ   Petition   is   being   filed   under

Article  32  of   the Constitution of India by the Petitioner  for
enforcement   of   the   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The immediate
cause of filing this petition is the facts which have come to
light about the blatant violation of the rule of law and also
contempt on the face of court committed by certain lawyers,
including   Respondent   Nos.   3   to   5,   on   15.02.2016   and
17.02.2016   in   the   Patiala   House   court   premises   and
complete inaction of the Delhi Police which has been exposed
by the report dated 18/2/16 of 5 senior advocates appointed
as   court   commissioners   by   this   court,   report   dated
19.02.2016  of   the   National Human Rights Commission as
well the sting operation dated 22.02.2106 conducted by the
India Today news channel.
2.

The  Petitioner  is a practicing  advocate in this Hon’ble

Court. 
3.

Respondent No. 1 is the Ministry of Home Affairs which

is entrusted with the responsibility of internal security and
law   &   order,   etc.   Respondent   No.   2   is   directly   under   the
control and supervision of Respondent No. 1.

4.

Respondent NO. 2 is Delhi Police. It is the duty of the

Respondent to ensure that there is law and order maintained

 4

in   the   state   of   Delhi   including   Court   premises.   That   the
Respondent No. 2 has grossly direlectedin its duties in failing
to provide safety and security to the litigants, journalists and
others in the Patiala House Court premises on the day when
the incident of took place.  
5.

Respondent   Nos.   3   to   5   are   the   advocates   who   have

been found to be leading the attacks in the above mentioned
incidents as per various reports including media reports and
the sting operation aired on the India Today news channel.
Since their addresses are not known to the Petitioner, they
have been made parties through Bar Council of India. 
6.

That the Petitioner has no personal interest involved in

the present matter and only seeks to protect the rights of the
citizens,   litigants   who   in   their   individual   capacity   do   not
possess the necessary knowledge or means to approach this
Hon’ble Court to seek redressal of their grievances. That the
Petitioner   is   not  involved  in  any  litigation  before  any  other
forum/court/authority, which has a nexus with the instant
Petition.
7.

It is submitted that the Petitioner has not approached

any Respondents or any other authority for the  redressal  of
his   grievances   since   all   the   alleged   in   this   petition   are   in

 5

public   domain   and   still   no   action   has   been   taken   by   the
concerned authorities.

8.

BRIEF FACTS:

8.1. On   09.02.2016,   a  cultural   program   called   “A
Country   without   a   Post   Office”   was   organized   by
some   of   the  students   of   the   Jawaharlal   Nehru
University (hereinafter ‘JNU’).
8.2.  That on 12.02.2016, an FIR was registered against
certain   students   of   the   JNU   under   Section   124A
and   120B   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860.  On
12.02.2016,   Mr.   Kanhaiya   Kumar,   the   student
union   president   of   Jawaharlal   Nehru   University,
was arrested on the basis of the said FIR. 
8.3. On   15.02.2016   when   Kanhaiya   Kumar   was   to   be
produced   before   the   Magistrate   at   Patiala   House
Courts,   students   and   teachers   from   JNU   and
journalists   were   attacked   by   some   criminal
elements, including advocates and a sitting member
of   the   Delhi  legislative  assembly,  in Patiala  House
Court. The injured journalist and defense advocates
approached the police to register FIRs on the basis
of a written complaint and to give the names of the
advocates   who   were   leading   the   attack   but   even

 6

though   the   facts   of   the   said   event   were   in   public
domain   and   the   pictures   and   videos   of   the   said
advocates   and   MLA   were   being   circulated   in   the
media, still the Delhi police refused to register FIR
on   the   basis   of   the   said   complaint.   Copies   of   the
some news reports dated 16.02.2016 giving details
of   the   said   events   at   Patiala   House   are   annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P­1 (Pages
 
           
 
 ).The
aforesaid   facts   have   been   also   confirmed   by   5
faculty members of the JNU who were present in the
Patiala   House   Court   premises   on   15.02.2016.   A
copy   of   the   said   report   dated   nil   is   annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P­2 (Pages
 
           
 
 ).
Despite the fact that the entire incident was widely
reported   in   newspaper   reports   and   some   of   the
lawyers, including the Respondent Nos 3 to 5 were
not   only   identified   but   they   also   admitted   their
involvement,   still   the   police   did   not   make   any
attempt to arrest them.
8.4.  That on 16.02.2016, the above­mentioned events of
15.02.2016 led to the filing of a writ petition before
this   Hon’ble   Court.   In   the   morning   of   17.02.2016
after a detailed hearing, this Hon’ble Court issued
detailed   orders   to   ensure   safety   of   the   accused

 7

namely   Kanhaiya   Kumar   when   he   was   to   be
produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate at the
Patiala   House Courts at  2 pm  and  to ensure that
the court proceedings were concluded without any
disruptions. A copy of the order dated 17.02.2016 in
the   Writ   petition   (Criminal)   No.   25   of   2016   is
annexed   and   marked   as  ANNEXURE   P­3(Pages
 
       
 ).
8.5. That on 17.02.2016, at around 2 pm,thePetitioner’s
counsel got a call from one of the defense lawyers
who had been permitted by this Hon’ble Court to be
present   at   the   Court   of   the   ShriLoveleen,
Metropolitan   Magistrate,   Patiala   House  Court.  The
Petitioner’s   counsel   was   told   that   total
pandemonium had broken out at the court premises
and   the   defense   lawyers   had   been   forced   to   lock
themselves inside the court room  in order to save
their   lives   from   the   unruly   mob   of   lawyers.   The
petitioner’s   counsel   immediately  mentioned   the
events   which   were   being   transpired   at   the   Patiala
House Court premised before the accused Kanhaiya
Kumar   could   be   produced   the   MM.   While   this
Hon’ble Court was waiting to get the version of the
Delhi Police on this, it was brought to the notice of

 8

the   Hon’ble   Court   by   the   petitioner’s   counsel   and
some   senior   lawyers   that   the   accused   person   was
beaten   up   and   journalists   assaulted  again   despite
the   order   passed   by   this   Hon’ble   Court   in   the
morning.   This   Hon’ble   Court   directed   a   team   of
lawyers   to   inspect   the   Patiala   House   Courts   and
give   a   report.   A   copy   of   the   second   order   dated
17.02.2016   of   this   Hon’ble   Court   in  Writ   petition
(Criminal)   No.   25   of   2016  is   annexed   herewith   as
 ANNEXURE P­4 (Pages
 
    
           
 
 ).
8.6.That

 

on

 

17.02.2016,

 

at

 4.05pm,

the   court   appointed   committee   submitted   its   oral
report   that   the   accused   was   badly   beaten   up,
journalists   bashed   up   and   police   again   failed   to
maintain   law   and   order.   The   committee   also
mentioned that they were abused in filthy language
and   pelted   with   flower   pots,   pebbles   and   water
bottles.   It   was   also   informed   that
lawyers and journalists were locked inside the court
room.
8.7

That on 18.02.2016; News   reports   showed   that   the
lawyers   leading   the   assaults   on   17.02.2016   and
15.02.2016   were   the   same   and   that   the   said
assaults were premeditated. The news reports also

 9

mentioned   that   the   police   had   remained   mute
spectators to this open violation of the law and the
order of this Hon’ble Court. Copies of the said News
Reports dated 18.02.2016 are annexed and marked
as ANNEXURE P­5
 
 (Pages
 
         
 
 ).One   news   report
carried   the   first   person   account   of   a   journalist
about   the   blatant   mockery   of   the   judicial   process
and   quoted   the   assaulters   viz.   "Ab   le   aao   SC
koapnesaath. Kahaangaya SC isswaqt? (Now bring
the SC with you. Where is the SC right now?)". 
8.8

The team of 5 senior lawyers who were sent by this
Hon’ble Court on 17.02.2016 to Patiala House Court
submitted its written report to this Hon’ble Court.
They have observed the following facts in the said
report:
“The   atmosphere   outside   was   surcharged   and
intimidating. Abuses were also shouted and hurled
on Mr. Sibal and all other committee members. There
was   an   instigation   to   intimidate   the   committee
members   and   create   an   atmosphere   of   fear   and
terror.   The   upbeat   mood   of   the   crowd   in   lawyers’
dress who continuously were shouting slogans and
abuses   to   present   a   terrorizing   atmosphere   was

 10

clearly   visible.”   The   police   team   which   had
accompanied   the   Committee   members   from   the
Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   realized   the   gravity   of   the
situation   and   circled   the   Committee   members   by
forming   a   Security   ring   of   the   officers   as   the
Committee members started walking from the court
room towards the gate to go (sic) the Supreme Court
in   the   police   vehicles.   Said   ring   of   the   police
officers/cordone   was   broken   on   more   than   three
occasions  by  the  lawyers  who  were  present   in the
Court Compound despite the presence of other Delhi
Police   Personnel.   There   was   continuous   slogan
raising, shouting, hurling of abuses throughout. After
coming out of the court building within the premises
of the Patiala House Court, sand stones were thrown
on   the   members   of   the   Committee.   Even   a   sharp
piece of a broken flower pot was also thrown. A half­
filled   plastic   water   bottle   was   also   thrown.   The
intimidating   shouting   and   chanting   of   slogans
continued. That but for the security ring provided by
the officers of the Supreme Court Security police, it
would   not   have   been   possible   for   the   Committee
members   to   come   out   unscathed.   It   was   only   on
account of the security cover provided by the DCP Mr.

 11

Bharadwaj of the Supreme Court and his personnel
accompanying   the   members   that   the   committee
members   could   be   safely   evacuated   from   Court
premises. Though there was large number of police
personnel deployed, they could not contain the other
lawyers   present   in   large   number   to   intimidate   one
and all.
All Committee members felt that the atmosphere, to
say   the   least,   not   being   at   all   congenial,   was
surcharging,   threatening   and   frightening   and   the
Police had completely failed in its duty to contain the
atmosphere and the crowd.”
As   per   the   said   report,   “According   to   Committee
members unanimously, the responsibility had to be
fastened   on   all   the   police   personnel   who   were
present there and were aware of the direction of this
Hon’ble   Court   despite   this   unauthorisedly   two
persons   were   knowingly   permitted   to   enter   and   let
assault take place in the Court Room and outside in
the Court premises. 
A copy of the report dated 18.02.2016 by a team of
5 senior lawyers annexed hereto as  ANNEXURE P­
 6 (Pages
 
               
 
 ).

 12

The   defense   lawyers   also   submitted   their   report
before this Hon’ble Court wherein they have given
their eye­witness account. They have in their report
affirmed that the accused was badly beaten by the
lawyers when he was brought to the court building
and   also   inside   the   Court   hall   no.   3   by   an
unidentified person.   Copy of the report of defense
lawyers   dated   nil   is   being  annexed   hereto   as
 ANNEXURE P­7 (Pages
 
    
           
 
 ).
The   report   dated   17.02.2016   by   the   Registrar
General, High Court of Delhi raises question about
the   role   of   Sh.   JatinNarwal,DCP,   New   Delhi   who
despite   insistence   on   the   part   of   the   ld.   Registrar
General of the Delhi High Court, did not apprehend
the unauthorized person in plain clothes present in
the   Court   of   the   ld.   MM.Apart   from   the   aforesaid
reports,   a   report   dated   19.02.2106   by   ShriAjit
Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate who had gone with the
team   of   5   senior   lawyers   and   the   report   dated
19.02.2016   of   the   Delhi   Police   have   also   been
submitted before this Hon’ble Court. Copy ofreport
dated   17.02.2016   by   the   Registrar   General,   High
Court   of   Delhi   is   being   annexed   hereto   as
 ANNEXURE P­8 (Pages
 
    
           
 
 ).  Copy   of   thereport

 13

dated   19.02.2106   by   ShriAjit   Kumar   Sinha,   Sr.
Advocate is being annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P­
 9 (Pages
 
               
 
 ).Copy   of   the   report   dated
19.02.2016   of   the   Delhi   Policeis   being   annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE P­10
 
 (Pages
 
               
 
 ).

8.9.   That   on   19.02.2016,   the   National   Human   Rights
Commission   issued   a   report   on   the   crackdown   of
Delhi police on the students of JNU and the attack
on   the   accused   Kanhaiya   Kumar   and   others   by
lawyers   in   Patiala   House   Court.   The   report   has
stated that the attack in the Patiala House courts
complex   on   Kanhaiya   Kumar   on   Wednesday
"appears   to   be   organised   and   pre­planned."
It further stated that the attack on Mr Kumar, who
was   "abused   and   physically   assaulted   by   some
persons dressed as advocates", was a major security
lapse on part of the police. The report also pulled up
Delhi   Police   for   “serious   dereliction   of   duty”   and
said it “did not do anything to prevent the assault”
on Kumar inside the Patiala House Court premises
Wednesday   or   “apprehend   the   attackers”.

 

As   per   the   report,   “He   was   subjected   to
psychological   pressure   during   interrogation.   The

 14

statement, which was issued by police as an appeal
on   behalf   of  Kanhaiya   Kumar,  was  not  written   by
him   voluntarily.   The   content,   construction   and
framework of the statement were as dictated by the
police” A copy of the new report dated 19.02.2016 is
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P­11
 
 (Pages
 
     ).
 
On   17/2/16,   an   Associate   Professor   at   Centre   for
Economic   Studies   and   planning,   JNU,   Mr.
Himanshu, had accompanied the defense lawyers to
attend   the   court   hearing   as   a   faculty   member,   as
per the direction of this Hon’ble Court, and he has
also given his eye­witness account. He confirms that
the accused was attacked by a person wearing dark
sun glasses inside the court room but the police did
not   make   any   attempt   to   arrest   him.   The   said
Associate   Professor   has   been   able   to   identify   the
said assailant in a photograph published along with
a   report   in   Hindustan   Times   dated   19.02.2016
where   he   is   seen   wearing   a   checked   court   and
standing   along   with   other   lawyers   at   the   gate   of
Patiala   House   Court.   Copy   of   the   eye­witness
account of Mr. Himashu, Associate Professor, JNU
dated   nil   is   annexed   hereto   as  ANNEXURE   P­
 12 (Pages
 
           
 
 ).  Copy   of   the   Hindustan   Times

 15

report dated 19.02.2016 is being annexed hereto as
 ANNEXURE P­13 (Pages
 
            
  
 ).

8.10.   That   on   22.02.2016,   India   Today   aired   a   sting
operation on 3 lawyers, viz. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5,
wherein they have been shown saying that they had
beaten up the accused for 3 hours in the presence
of   the   police   personnel.   In   fact,   they   are   claiming
that the police were not only supporting them but
also appreciating their acts. The Respondents have
admitted that the attacks were not spontaneous but
in fact were pre­planned. The Respondent Nos. 3 to
5   also   say   that   they   will   repeat   the   same   acts   of
violence when the accused is produced in the court
again.   Respondent   No.4   has   been   found   brazenly
saying that he will get a patrol bomb next time and
he   will   not   leave   him   (the   accused)   even   if   he   is
charged   with   murder   for   doing   so.   He   has   also
stated on camera that if he is arrested he would like
to   go   to   the   same  jail  and   visit  the   accused’s   cell
and   beat   him   up   there   itself.   A   copy   of   the   news
report dated 22.02.2016 containing the transcript of
relevant extracts downloaded from the India today
website   is   annexed   herewith   as  ANNEXURE   P­

 16

 14 (Pages
 
           
 
 ).Link   of   the   said   sting   video   is   as
follows: 
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/exclusive­
kanhaiya­wet­his­pants­while­we­beat­him­up­in­
police­custody­say­lawyers­behind­patiala­house­
assault/1/602690.html.

8.11. That on 23.02.2016, the Times of India published a
news   story   that   a   judicial   officer   of   the   Patiala
House Court has written an eye­witness account to
the District Judge concerned about the incidents of
15.02.2016   and   17.02.2016   wherein   he   says   that
the   attacks   by   the   lawyers   were   one­sided   and
against   all   those   who   were   not   in   lawyers’   garbs.
The   saidreport   dated   23.02.2016   is   annexed   as
Annexure P/15.
8.12.

That   on   24.02.2016,   apparently   Respondent
No.4 was arrested and later let out on bail.

9.

In   the   light   of   all   the   facts   and   circumstances
narrated above, the petitioner seeks the intervention
of the court on the following among other:
GROUNDS

 17

A.

Because   the   inaction   of   the   Delhi   Police   in
preventing the events of 15.02.2016 and 17.02.2016
at   Patiala   House   Court   appears   deliberate   and
malafide   and   has   led   to   and   threatens   the
fundamental  rights  if people guaranteed by  article
21 of the Constitution of India. 

B.

Because   the   reports   of   the   Court   Commissioners
and that of the National Human Rights Commission
has not only indicted the Delhi Police for its failure
to prevent the attacks by the lawyers and to ensure
the safety of the accused person but the NHRC has
also   adversely   commented   upon   the   manner   in
which   the   Delhi   Police   has   forced   the   accused   to
issue a statement while in custody. 

C.

Because   various   eye   witness   accounts   from
15.02.2016   and   17.02.2016   also   state   that   the
police had remained mute spectators to the acts of
violence committed by the lawyers and others. 

D.

Because   the   said   sting   operation   shows   the
Respondent   Nos.   3­5   stating   that   the   police  were
not   only   supporting   them   but   also   appreciating
their acts, thereby substantiating the accounts from
all sources that the police were not doing their duty
of   maintaining   order   and   not   implementing   the

 18

orders of the court. In such circumstances, it would
be futile to allow the same Police to investigate the
events of 15 and 17 Feb at Patiala House, and that
a fair investigation would only be possible through
an SIT appointed by this court. 
E.

Because   the   said   sting   operation   shows   the
Respondent   Nos.   3­5   stating   that   they  will   repeat
the   same   acts   of   violence   when   the   accused   is
produced in the court again. Respondent No.4 has
been found brazenly saying that he will get a petrol
bomb   next   time   and   he   will   not   leave   him   (the
accused) even if he is charged with murder for doing
so.   He   has   also   stated   on   camera   that   if   he   is
arrested   he   would   like   to   go   to   the   same   jail   and
visit the accused’s cell and beat him up there itself.
This raises serious apprehension about the safety of
the accused person and others attending the court
proceedings in future. 

F.   Because the report of the NHRC as well as the sting
operation conducted by the India Today show that
the   attacks   on   15.02.2016   and   17.02.2016   were
premeditated   and   thus   the   attacking   lawyers
including the Respondent advocates had committed

 19

contempt   in   the   face   of   law   by   interfering   in   the
G.

administration of justice.
Because   the   Respondent   advocates   have
deliberately   violated   the   orders   passed   by   this
Hon’ble   Court on 17.02.2016 and  thus  committed
willful   defiance   of   this   Hon’ble   Court’s   orders   and
thereby committing contempt of this Hon’ble Court.

10.       That  the Petitioners have not filed any  Petition  
before any High Court or this Hon’ble Court seeking
the same or similar relief.

PRAYER
Under   the   circumstances   mentioned   above,   it   is  
most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court:
a.

Issue   an   appropriate   writ,   order   or   direction   to
constitute   a   Special   Investigation   Team   to
investigate  the  incidents  of  attacks on  15.02.2016
and 17.02.2016 by some lawyers and others in the
premises of Patiala house court on the journalists,
students,   teachers,   defense   lawyers   and   the
accused person, and 

b.

Issue   suomoto   contempt   proceeding   against   the
Respondent   Nos.   3­5   for   interfering   in   the
administration   of   justice   and   for   willfully   violating
the orders dated 17.02.2016 of this Hon’ble Court,
and

 20

c.

Pass   such   further   and   other   orders   as   the   Court
may   deem   fit   in   the   interest   of   justice   and
circumstances of the present case. 

FILED BY:

PRASHANT BHUSHAN
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
DRAWN BY: PYOLI, Adv
DRAWN ON: 23.02.2016
FILED ON: ____.02.2016