Three defence lawyers of Kanhaiya Kumar spoken to by Legally Indiasaid it was nearly impossible that lawyers beat Kumar for three hours, as they had boasted in a sting recording by India Today.
Advocates Yashpal Singh and Vikram Singh Chauhan were recorded in an India Today sting operation as boasting of beating up Kumar and having pre-meditated the attacks, with advocate Prashant Bhushan yesterday requesting the Supreme Court to start suo motu contempt proceedings against the lawyers.
Chauhan, in particular, had said that on 15 February:
We beat up that boy [Kanhaiya] for 3 hours... 3 hours...
We forced him to say ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’... Yes, he said ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai.’ We made him say it. We bashed him for three hours. He wet his pants. We beat him up so much.
One of Kumar’s lawyers, Rebecca John, commented: “He was definitely beaten on the 17th [February] within the Patiala House premises and within the court room, and a medical examination took place.”
But what the lawyers were claiming in the sting video was “just this macho bravado”, she added.
“Part of it is nonsense,” agreed advocate Vrinda Grover, who is also representing Kumar, about their claims. “They didn’t beat him up for three hours.”
Advocate Sushil Bajaj, who’s also representing Kumar, noted that their claims were “very highly exaggerated”, having spoken to Kumar on 17 February.
“They are saying they beat him for three hours - I don’t know where the occasion for that would have been,” said Bajaj. “The only time where they could conceivably have come into contact with him, was when he was entering the court room.”
“On the 17th he was produced in court, and thereafter he was immediately transferred to judicial custody and there he’s been kept in isolation [though not in solitary confinement],” explained Bajaj. “I don’t know where these people would have had access to him in judicial custody [in Tihar jail] and people are going to meet him [there] on a fairly regular basis.”
Bajaj said he “would find that completely incredible” if lawyers were able to beat him for three hours inside Tihar jail. “I don’t believe that for a minute,” he added, joking: “If that’s what actually happened, then a very large number of people have a lot to answer for.”
Bajaj said that Kumar had never indicated to him in his conversation on the 17th that he had been beaten any time other than when he entered the court premises and again when he was on the court premises.
“The person who attacked him inside the court premises is not one of the people on whom the sting operation has been conducted,” added Bajaj about his understanding of the situation.
That said, despite the rumour mill in overdrive for the past week about what happened, those assaults on Kumar in and outside the court were serious.
“He indicated that he had been very badly beaten, he had been pushed around, had been hit,” said Bajaj. “When I first saw him, his nose was bleeding and his hand was bleeding, how deep that injury was, I was not in a position to say.
“And he wasn’t wearing his slippers, because his slippers got lost in the melee.”
It was suspected in court that Kumar might have also suffered internal injuries, so the court ordered an X-ray examination be carried out, the results of which his lawyers had not yet seen, according to Bajaj.
He added that in their 17 February conversation Kumar had not indicated that he had been treated badly or beaten by police.
Advocate Yashpal Singh, one of the lawyers who allegedly assaulted journalists, JNU students and laweyrs, was arrested yesterday, and released on bail a few hours later.
Vikram Singh Chauhan has not yet surrendered to the police.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
There's a report today quoting Kanhaiya's brother as saying that he should remain in jail as he is safest there and he should not even be produced personally for court hearings.
The India Today sting video I watched had the three lawyers boasting that Kanhaiya was beaten in the Patiala House Court premises. They claimed they wanted to beat him up in Tihar jail too.
Yet Telegraph has a story that presents this as claims that Kanhaiya was beaten in lock-up in Tihar. www.telegraphindia.com/1160224/jsp/nation/story_71035.jsp#.Vs0wNPl97IV
So its clear from his lawyers that he was badly beaten up in court and that he was bleeding and likely had internal injuries. If he had internal injuries then an Xray would not suffice. He should be examined in AIIMS under Delhi High Court orders. He should be produced before the Delhi High Court.
Its strange that his lawyers who moved his bail plea before the High Court and are appearing for him, still don't know about the results of the xrays or whether or not Kanhaiya sustained internal injuries. It could be broken bones, broken ribs, dislocated joints, trauma to organs or soft tissue, internal bleeding, dangerous blows to the head, etc.
I had also read somewhere that Kanhaiya had complained of chest pain after the beating.
Kian it was obvious they could not have beaten him for 3 hours. It was obvious it was an exaggeration and you really didnt need to chase three of Kanhaiya's lawyers to know that
They never said that Kanhaiya was beaten in Tihar. They did say that they wanted to beat Kanhaiya in Tihar.
So why are false stories being published that this sting shows that Kanhaiya might have been beaten in Tihar.
All deliberate muddying of the waters in my opinion as part of a cover-up and plan to save some lawyers.
It may be a fairly obvious point, though only to those tracking the case closely...
The nature of his injuries are serious but unknown. These need to be determined at AIIMS through a Court order.
An FIR for assault is needed. The persons who beat him need to be identified. Then they should be prosecuted in a public criminal trial.
There is also a need to determine if he was ever beaten or tortured by the Police outside the Court premises.
Lets get an FIR going for the attack on Kanhaiya, lets get him medically examined at AIIMS to get an authoritative report on his injuries, and then let the law takes its course and the judiciary hear that case. Let the police investigation happen. Let them arrest the lawyers who attacked Kanhaiya. The Police was there, they saw it happen, They can themselves identify the lawyers. There might even be CCTV records.
Let a trial happen. There will be several witnesses in this case, Police officers, judges, the Delhi High Court Registrar, Members of the Supreme Court committee including Sibal, Dhawan etc, Kanhaiya's own lawyers who saw him bleeding, the doctors who were summoned to Court, journalists, other lawyers, even Police Commissioner B S Bassi.
The rule of law applies to all.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Kanhaiya-told-me-he-was-assaulted-outside-court-HC-registrar-general/articleshow/51113762.cms
Kanhaiya told me he was assaulted outside court: HC registrar general
TNN | Feb 24, 2016, 12.53 AM IST
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court registrar general has informed the Supreme Court that he was told by JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar that he was assaulted by unruly lawyers on February 17 outside the trial court room within Patiala House courts complex.
While clarifying that Kanhaiya was not assaulted inside the trial court room as complained by his lawyers, the registrar general said Kanhaiya looked dishevelled and told him that he was assaulted by lawyers outside the court. He also confirmed the allegation of the six-member lawyers' panel that an unauthorized person was present inside the court room adjacent to the trial court room. However, he said the man walked away when he told the police to apprehend him.
Apart from six lawyers of the accused, his teacher Himanshu, four reporters from different news agencies and senior police officials as well as a few presiding officers of Patiala House court complex were present inside the court room.
The registrar general in his five-page report narrated the sequence of events he witnessed and said Kanhaiya was brought into the court in police protection around 2.50 pm. After the court proceedings, Kanhaiya's lawyers insisted on his medical examination and a doctor from Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital was brought for the purpose.
When the doctor finished examining the accused, his lawyers complained that the doctor was not recording Kanhaiya's statement about assault. The registrar general said the doctor told him that he had recorded whatever was necessary for the purpose of examination and if a medico-legal case was to be lodged, then he would do so only after examining him at RML Hospital.
The doctor also said Kanhaiya was complaining of chest pain for which an X-ray was necessary. The registrar general said since there were unruly incidents outside the court by lawyers, the police were devising plans to escort the accused and Himanshu out safely, which was possible only around 7 pm.
The registrar general said the police said that while taking back the accused to Tihar jail, they would stop by to conduct an X-ray on him.
Of the six-member lawyers' panel sent by the Supreme Court on February 17, five - Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, Rajeev Dhavan, Harin Raval and A D N Rao - gave a report which contained a video recording of Kanhaiya inside the court room complaining that he was assaulted by lawyers while being brought in.
Kanhaiya's six lawyers, including Vrinda Grover, also gave a report narrating the sequence of events on February 17.
Delhi Police, in their report to the SC, denied any assault on Kanhaiya inside or outside the court room but admitted that the police cordon around Kanhaiya was pushed around by unruly lawyers.
They also admitted that they could not control the lawyers because of the topography and location of Patiala House court complex. They also said the force exercised restraint as lawyers were officers of the court.
It is no coincidence that all of the most controversial trials (Afzal Guru, Yakub Memon, the 26/11 trials, the Jyoti Singh gangrape) have been closed to the public and to most of the media as well.
Such secret proceedings suit the Police and the State. The Police and the intelligence agencies probably create circumstances for secret trials in such cases.
Its unfortunate that students are now being treated in this same way.
The lack of clarity about what happened at Patiala House is an example of the consequences of closed proceedings.
Also by doing this the State will now keep the JNU supporters of these students away from the court proceedings.
It is always preferable to have open trials as justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
We all ought to be very concerned for these students.
Why did Prashant Bhushan tell the Supreme Court that Kanhaiya did not say anything about being beaten up in Patiala House.
thewire.in/2016/02/25/now-delhi-police-probe-foreign-hand-non-educational-activities-on-campus-22594/
first, maybe Delhi Police could employ some JNU students (after certifying that they are not anti-national of course) who can proof-read their reports submitted in court.
Can bail be denied only because Kanhaiya has wide support and can become a rallying-point for a movement? He has already become a rallying point for all Indians who will fight for their right to free speech and will remain so for the rest of his life. So will the Police just keep him locked up for the rest of his life?
Is Delhi Police now the censor board for all speech and writing in India? They object to the words "Brahmanical collective conscience" now. And of course j"udicial killing".
How much money do you need to shout slogans on campus? They want to investigate the finances involved.
How will Kanhaiya being released on bail prevent the police from looking at JNU CCTV footage.
OK from now on Delhi Police will determine what are educational and what are non-educational activities on campuses. Organizing a discussion on terrorism might be labeled as non-educational.
The Delhi Police has said it wants to see if there's nexus with the anti-India movement in the country.
What is this anti-India movement in the country that has suddenly come into existence in the conspiracy theorist mind-set of the Delhi Police?
They must do this now otherwise all or some of them will languish in jail for months and the police will slowly manufacture evidence of criminality against them.
The Modi Government will not gracefully admit its mistake, it will not back off.
These students should approach the Supreme Court now while there is so much public support for them. If this drags on for months or years, public attention will have moved on and they will become easier targets for the State to victimize.
I fail to understand why JNU students or even the leftist parties have this adulation for Afzal Guru, so I'm waiting to hear Kanhaia exercise his freedom of speech fearlesly in Court and to the largest audience he can possibly have (with all the interest this has raised) and tell us what it was all about.
On Afzal Guru, there appear to be three narratives. First the Police narrative which became part of the Supreme Court decision - that Afzal was a terrorist who masterminded and/ or helped plan and execute the Parliament attack.
Second the narrative that you apparently hear in the Kashmir valley that Afzal was a matyr to the cause of Azaad Kashmir. This is the separatist movement claiming Afzal Guru's legacy.
The third narrative is that Afzal was a surrendered terrorist who was subsequently tortured by Indian State agents. He was involved in the Parliament attack saga by one of these people. His confession was forced/ under duress. The Police duped him. His role in the attack conspiracy was minor. He was basically following orders from someone within the Indian State machinery. This narrative suggests that the Parliament attacks were a false flag attack. In this narrative Afzal is not a matyr, but a patsy, a victim, a scapegoat, someone who was used and discarded.
I read about Afzal some years ago. And the false flag narrative was convincing based upon the evidence and facts cited to sustain it. Like P Chidambaram has stated, I honestly have major doubts as to the police narrative, I certainly don't subscribe to the matyr narrative.
On JNU, I am only defending the right of JNU students to free thought and speech. Mere slogan shouting cannot be sedition. Evidence points to the possibility that the 9 Feb incident was also planned by the BJP-RSS-ABVP in their quest to take over Universities.
Discussion on topics like Afzal Guru or terrorism or the Kashmiris' right to self-determination or opposition to the death penalty or to discuss the Indian State's use of force in Kashmir, or to discuss fascist tendencies in the RSS and BJP mind-set is all allowed under the Constitution.
There is no evidence so far that any criminal activities occurred in JNU on 9 Feb.
For more on my views, you need to read what I have written in several places on this website and my blog. I will not repeat myself especially for you.
The third narrative is that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was subsequently tortured by Indian State agents.
Instead of
The third narrative is that Afzal was a surrendered terrorist who was subsequently tortured by Indian State agents.
Actually the Supreme Court did the following:
"It has not been contended before us on behalf of the appellant in C.A. 169 of 1957 or on behalf of the respondents in the other appeals (No. 124- 126 of 1958) that the words used by them did not come within the purview of the definition of sedition as interpreted by us. No arguments were advanced before us to show that even on the interpretation given by us their cases did not come within the mischief of the one or the other section, as the case may be. It follows, therefore, that the Criminal Appeal 169 of 1957 has to be dismissed. Criminal Appeals 124-126 of 1958 will be remanded to the High Court to pass such order as it thinks fit and proper in the light of the interpretation given by us.
Appeal No. 169 of 1957 dismissed.
Appeals Nos. 124 to 126 of 1958 allowed."
Appeals 124 to 126 of 1958 were allowed and the High Court was directed to re-examine the conviction in light of the narrow interpretation given by the Supreme Court to Section 124A.
So Arun Jaitley has clearly misled Parliament by stating that in Kedar Nath the Supreme Court 'found' that the slogans mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Kedar Nath decision were seditious. This is incorrect and Arun Jaitley is misleading Parliament. The Supreme Court did not even consider the nature of the slogans and did not consider the question as to whether those slogans were seditious. This because the only ground of appeal taken in Appeal No. 169 of 1957 was that Section 124A was unconstitutional. The point as to whether these slogans fell within the ambit of 124A was neither argued nor decided before the Supreme Court.
Kanhaiya clearly describes how he was beaten just inside the gate of Patiala House Court.
drive.google.com/file/d/0B4myvBWaG8jqSnUxVUxHb2IyaGc/view
The Delhi Police have manufactured a fake security threat to Kanhaiya and as expected now don't want to bring him to Court at all. Appearance via video link cannot be a fair trial. The accused has a right to be present during his trial. Kanhaiya is a fearless and articulate man. His crime seems to be that he has been very critical of the RSS/ BJP/ Modi etc.
indiatoday.intoday.in/story/agencies-not-keen-on-kanhaiyas-court-appearance/1/605820.html
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first