New Delhi, Jul 29 A Delhi court has granted bail to two law students who were arrested and jailed for allegedly hurling abuses during a Supreme Court hearing, assaulting a security staff member and disrupting proceedings.
The court underlined that an institution of the stature and permanence of the Supreme Court is not diminished by the intemperate conduct of a single agitated, unrepresented litigant, and so subordinate courts should be guided by the same institutional restraint.
At the same time, Judicial Magistrate Ravi in his order stated that it is necessary to state clearly that such conduct is "not condoned and is unequivocally deprecated".
The court was hearing the bail pleas of Prabal Pratap Singh (24), a third-year law student of Lucknow University from Uttar Pradesh's Etawah who was appearing as the petitioner-in-person, and Chander Bhan (23), a second-year law student from Raebareli district.
According to police, the incident occurred during the hearing of Special Leave Petition (Civil), Prabal Pratap and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Commissioner inside Court No. 13 of the apex court on July 10.
Police said that Prabal Pratap, appearing as a petitioner-in-person, disrupted the court proceedings by using "abusive and unparliamentary language", throwing papers inside the courtroom and creating a commotion, besides using criminal force against security personnel.
In the order dated July 27, made available on Wednesday, the court noted that the allegations disclosed a conduct impacting the dignity and decorum of the highest constitutional court.
"A litigant, howsoever aggrieved by the outcome of his cause or howsoever unrepresented, does not thereby acquire licence to hurl papers in open court or direct abusive language at the presiding authority, much less at the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), an institution that stands as the final guarantor of the very rights and liberties that every citizen."
The court said such conduct, if allowed to pass unremarked, carries the risk of being perceived as tacitly acceptable, and it is necessary to state clearly that such conduct is not condoned and is unequivocally deprecated.
The magistrate said it is expected that the accused will, in future, conduct themselves before any other court with the restraint and decorum that the administration of justice necessarily demands.
He, however, said that the apex court had dealt with the matter with considerable equanimity, and the top court bench on July 10, while recording that the petitioner made incoherent and unparliamentary utterances, did not propose to take any action against him.
"An institution of the stature and permanence of the Supreme Court is not diminished by the intemperate conduct of a single agitated, unrepresented litigant, and it is only appropriate that subordinate courts, in assessing the consequences that ought to flow from such conduct at the stage of bail, be guided by the same institutional restraint and equanimity that the highest court itself has demonstrated," the magistrate said.
So the bail pleas had to be settled in principles of bail jurisprudence, he said, adding that the court is required to examine whether continued custody is warranted, uninfluenced by the "emotive character" of the allegations.
The magistrate noted that the alleged offences, such as assaulting and obstructing a public servant, carried maximum sentences of two years, that the Delhi Police had completed its probe, and that no further recovery or custodial interrogation was required.
"No material has been placed before this court to show that either accused is required for any further investigative purpose. It is well settled that bail is the rule and jail the exception, more so in offences that do not entail grave or heinous punishment, and that pre-trial detention ought not to be employed as an instrument of punishment before conviction," he said.
The gravity of the language allegedly used, however deprecable, cannot by itself convert offences that are otherwise non-heinous in nature into grounds for indefinite pre-trial incarceration, particularly once the investigation stands substantially complete, the magistrate added.
He said the accused persons have roots in society, verified rural addresses and there is no material to suggest any real risk of their fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses, and so the continued detention of the accused is not warranted in law.
The court granted them bail on furnishing a bail bond and surety bond of Rs 25,000 each, and subject to other conditions, including the accused joining the investigation or trial as and when required and maintaining "strict decorum" in all future judicial proceedings.
It clarified that these observations are confined to the question of bail and will have no bearing on the merits of the trial.
