In a significant development in the case of a high-profile security breach at the Indian Parliament, the Delhi High Court has recently taken a decisive step by staying a trial court’s order. This pivotal order had previously directed the Delhi Police to provide a copy of the FIR to Neelam Azad, who is implicated in this sensitive case. The case, charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), has been the center of much attention due to its implications on national security.
Also read-Delhi HC Orders Rahul Gandhi To Delete Tweet On Minor Rape Victim (lawchakra.in)
The saga began when the trial court, led by Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur of the Patiala House court, made a controversial decision. Despite the vehement opposition from the Delhi Police’s Special Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh, the court ordered the police to supply a copy of the FIR to Azad. The Delhi Police, stressing the sensitive nature of the case, argued fervently against this decision. They pointed out that the FIR was sealed, considering the ongoing investigation and the fact that some of the accused were still at large. The police counsel made a compelling case, stating,
“Every piece of information is crucial at this stage, and any leakage could influence the investigation.”
In response to this unfolding situation, the Delhi High Court, under the guidance of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, intervened by staying the execution of the trial court’s order. This move by the High Court came swiftly after the Delhi Police filed an urgent plea. Justice Sharma, recognizing the gravity and sensitivity of the case, remarked,
“The execution of the order stands stayed till the next date of hearing. In the meantime, issue notice to the accused for the next date.”
The legal intricacies of the case were further highlighted by Standing Counsel Sanjay Lao, representing the Delhi Police. He pointed out a critical procedural lapse by the Sessions Judge, referring to a Supreme Court judgment. This judgment clearly states that in sensitive cases, FIRs in UAPA cases are not to be given to the accused without adhering to a specific process. Lao elucidated,
“There is already a procedure in place that the applicant has to first approach the Commissioner of Police to seek a copy of the UAPA FIR, and only after the Committee’s decision can the applicant move the court.”
Also read-Delhi High Court’s Response To Rahul Gandhi’s Controversial Speech (lawchakra.in)
The case itself traces back to a major security breach at the Parliament on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack. This incident saw two individuals, Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D, causing a disruption during the Zero Hour session in the Lok Sabha. Along with two other accused, Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad, they were observed using canisters that released colored gas and shouting slogans, leading to their immediate arrest and the start of legal proceedings against them.
Looking ahead, the Delhi High Court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on January 04, 2024. In the interim, the court has acknowledged the legal rights of the accused, Neelam Azad, granting her the provision to interact with her lawyer every alternate day for fifteen minutes, a recognition of her entitlement to legal assistance.
This case is a striking example of the complex interplay between national security concerns and the legal rights of individuals. The Delhi High Court’s decision to stay the trial court’s order underscores the delicate balance that must be maintained between ensuring fair legal processes and protecting sensitive information in matters of national importance. As the case progresses, it continues to be a focal point for discussions on legal procedures and national security in India.
