Parliament security breach: HC refuses to urgently hear Neelam’s plea for release from police custody
New Delhi, Dec 28 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to urgently hear the habeas corpus plea filed by Parliament security breach case accused Neelam Azad seeking immediate release from the custody of Delhi Police.
The Vacation Bench of Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Shalinder Kaur said that there was no urgency in the matter.
Claiming that her arrest was illegal, Azad has said that it was in contravention of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution.
Azad, with three other accused persons, was arrested on December 13, and on December 21, a Delhi court extended their police custody till January 5, 2024.
Azad has challenged the legality of the remand order dated December 21 on the ground that she wasn’t allowed to consult the legal practitioner of her choice to defend her during the proceeding of the remand application dated December 21 moved by the state.
She has further alleged that she was produced after 29 hours contrary to the law.
The plea reads, “The petitioner has placed reliance on the words ‘choice’ and ‘defended’ in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India to emphasise that it is an admitted fact that the state prevented her from having a legal representation of her choice and when she was produced before the court, although an advocate was indeed appointed by the Ld. Court, she wasn’t given the opportunity to choose the most suitable advocate from DLSA.”
It says that the court made a fatal error by adjudicating the remand application first and then asking the petitioner if she wanted to be defended by a legal practitioner of her choice.
“Thus, the right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India was grossly violated making the remand order dated 21.12.2023 unlawful,” the plea reads.
The Delhi Police has told a court that the accused in the case were “hardened criminals”, consistently altering their statements.
Police have registered an FIR under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the accused and are investigating the security lapse issue, too.
The police had informed the court that they have included Sections 16 (terrorism) and 18 (conspiracy for terrorism) of the UAPA in the charges against the accused.
The case revolves around a major security breach on the 22nd anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, where two of the accused jumped onto the floor of the Lok Sabha, released yellow gas, and shouted slogans before being overpowered by the MPs.
The High Court on December 22 stayed a trial court’s order directing Delhi Police to supply Azad a copy of the FIR till the next date of hearing, which is January 4, 2024.
–IANS
spr/rad
