Sr. Adv. Aryama Sundaram strongly opposed linking an NDPS case to the Pahalgam terror attack in the Supreme Court. He highlighted the serious impact on the accused’s family, saying, “Children are being bullied in school, called children of terrorists.”
New Delhi: Recently, the Supreme Court was hearing a sensitive bail case related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram expressed strong objections regarding the case’s linkage to terrorism, particularly referencing the Pahalgam terror attack, which had been mentioned by the Union of India the previous day.
While addressing the Bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S. Kant, Sr. Adv. Sundaram highlighted the social stigma faced by the accused and their families due to statements made in court, which were also being reported in the media.
He stated,
“Children are being bullied in school, called ‘children of terrorists,’ and they had to be brought back. It’s all reported in the newspapers. I am concerned. This drug seizure is being linked to the Pahalgam blast. Please check what the papers, like Times of India and The Hindu, are saying.”
In response, Justice S. Kant stated,
“I don’t pay attention to this kind of news. I make sure not to let anything, whether it’s news or anything else, influence my thoughts. Just forget about it. It’s better not to read it.”
Continuing to emphasize the seriousness of the situation, Sr. Adv. Sundaram remarked,
“They are claiming that drug money is being used to fund terrorism in this NDPS case!”
Justice S. Kant replied,
“These are just opinions, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong.”
Sr. Adv. Sundaram further informed the court that the family was facing threats and that school children were being harassed.
He said,
“They are receiving threatening calls at school.”
The mention of the Pahalgam attack had occurred during an earlier hearing when Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati made a passionate statement,
“Look at what they did to India in Pahalgam by shooting innocent tourists.”
Sr. Adv. Sundaram criticized this connection, objecting strongly,
“Yesterday, Pahalgam was mentioned out of nowhere. Please clarify that this is unrelated to the NDPS case.”
He added,
“The reason for this is what was said in court, labeling it as an NIA case. The NIA hasn’t even looked into it. Everyone should understand how such comments can harm innocent people.”
Justice S. Kant sought to clarify, stating,
“The Learned Additional Solicitor General was speaking in a different context.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then intervened, saying,
“She has apologized. I have been instructed to say that our investigation shows the money from this transaction went to Lashkar-e-Taiba, according to newspaper reports.”
In response, Sr. Adv. Sundaram sharply countered,
“There is no proof! My learned friend keeps repeating the same thing. One statement like this is made, and it gets blown out of proportion.”
Justice S. Kant brought the discussion back to the main issue, reminding both parties not to let emotions cloud their arguments.
He said,
“This is not the point we need to focus on, so let’s not get distracted. Sometimes, emotions can affect the way cases are argued, and this happens on both sides.”
He also clarified that “ASG Bhati didn’t actually oppose bail based on this reason.”
In a final appeal, Sr. Adv. Sundaram requested,
“Please provide any document you presented in court that says this.”
Also Read: [BREAKING] PIL Filed in Supreme Court After Pahalgam Terror Attack That Killed 27
Justice S. Kant addressed the Solicitor General with a strong reminder,
“No family member, whether the person is guilty or not, should have to suffer because of it. Make sure to handle that properly. We don’t need to say more. You already know what needs to be done.”
This exchange in the courtroom highlights a significant concern regarding the conflation of sensitive issues like drug offenses and terrorism, which can severely impact the reputation and safety of the accused and their families before any legal conclusions are reached, the Bench maintained a cautious and balanced approach, emphasizing the importance of evidence, responsible court statements, and safeguarding the dignity of families involved in legal proceedings.
Case Title: HARPREET SINGH TALWAR @ KABIR TALWAR Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT, SLP(Crl) No. 8878/2024
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
