Delhi violence UAPA case on Ishrat Jahan: Controversy in Delhi High Court over representing Delhi police

The controversy over who will represent Delhi Police in a communal violence matter again hit the Delhi High Court which on Tuesday allowed Delhi government standing counsel to file a status report on a plea by former Congress municipal councillor Ishrat Jahan, booked under anti-terror law -- UAPA --- in a case.

Ishrat Jahan, who was arrested on February 26, has challenged an order of a trial court extending time for completing the investigation by 60 more days in the case related to communal violence in northeast Delhi in February this year.

At the outset, Delhi Government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra, objected to the status report being filed by advocate Amit Mahajan, who said he has been appointed as a special counsel by the Lieutenant Governor to represent Delhi Police in the case.

Mehra said he has been appointed as the standing counsel by the full court of Delhi High Court and every status report or document filed on behalf of the prosecution has to be routed through his office.

He said this status report filed in Jahan’s case should have been routed through his office, which was not done.

Objecting to this, Mahajan said there is no procedure in law or any Act that the status report has to be routed through the office of standing counsel (criminal).

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, who was hearing the matter through video conferencing, said since a legal issue has arisen in this case, “I hereby direct Rahul Mehra, Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) to file a status report or written arguments and the investigating officer of the case is directed to brief the office of the standing counsel regarding the matter. The status report shall be filed within four days.”

The high court clarified that it was not making any observation or comments on whether Mahajan, who was appointed by the LG, is legally authorised to file the status report or not.

A similar controversy on who will represent the Delhi Police has arisen in various cases time and again.

The high court on June 24 had asked the police to respond to Jahan’s plea challenging the trial court’s June 15 order granting a 60-day extension to police to complete its investigation against her and activist Khalid Saifi.

The trial court was informed that Saifi had allegedly travelled outside India and met persons including fugitive Zakir Naik, controversial Islamic preacher, to get funds for spreading his agenda and the investigation regarding this required more time.

Advocate Manu Sharma, who appeared for Jahan, has sought setting aside of the trial court’s order, saying it was “erroneous, bad in law and wrong on facts” and it was against the democratic and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

“The application by the prosecutor is an abuse of the legal process as the same fails to make out any legal or factual basis that justifies extension of time. This exercise is only to subvert and defeat the right of the petitioner to seek regular and statutory bail under the CrPC.

“The order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. Speedy and fair investigation are fundamental tenets of the criminal justice system…,” the plea has said.

The trial court, in its June 15 order, had said the prosecution has set out a case for extension of the statutory time period to conclude the investigation but the investigating officer was not divested of his obligation of concluding the probe expeditiously.

The trial court, which granted time till August 14 to conclude the pending investigation, had noted the police contention that Saifi got suspicious funds through a NRI account of a person, who is serving in Singapore, in the account of an NGO which he is running in partnership with his friend.

The police had sought extension of time till September 17 for concluding investigation against Jahan and Khalid, under section 43D (2) (b) of the anti-terror law.

Section 43-D (2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) provides that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the 90 days period, then upon the report of the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the probe and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the 90 days period, after satisfaction, the court can extend the period of probe to 180 days.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and scores injured.