The Supreme Court of India has extended a protective shield to Congress leader Randeep Surjewala, granting him immunity from arrest for five weeks in a case that has its origins in a political protest dating back 23 years. The case pertains to an event in August 2000, where Surjewala, then a Youth Congress leader, was allegedly involved in a demonstration at the office of a Divisional Commissioner in Varanasi that turned violent.
This reprieve came after a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, heard the plea. The urgency of the matter was precipitated by a non-bailable warrant issued against Surjewala by Special Judge (MP-MLA) Avanish Gautam, which directed him to appear in a Varanasi court on November 21.
Representing Surjewala, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi approached the apex court, informing the bench that the warrant was issued despite the Allahabad High Court having reserved its judgment on a related petition. Singhvi expressed dismay at the high court’s decision not to expedite the hearing, saying,
“Where was the need to issue NBW, when the HC has reserved its order on 482 petition?” He further explained the circumstances leading to the issuance of the warrant,
“It is an FIR of the year 2000 because of alleged political agitation involving the petitioner as a youth Congress leader.”
The Supreme Court bench, upon hearing Singhvi’s submissions, questioned the approach taken by Surjewala’s counsel, asking,
“Why did you come here? You should go to the high court.”
Singhvi responded by detailing the attempts made to address the matter in the high court, which included a declined urgent mentioning and the absence of an order, leading to the approach to the apex court.
In response to the situation, the Supreme Court bench stated,
“The apex court said that it will say that Surjewala can appear and apply for cancelling NBW.”
Singhvi sought a period of four weeks for his client, referring to it as “breathing time,” to which the court acquiesced.
After considering the submissions, the bench concluded,
“bearing in minds the facts of the case, the petitioner is granted liberty to move an application for cancellation of NBW before the trial court within a period of four weeks, and the warrant would not be executed in the meantime for the period up to five weeks.”
This decision by the Supreme Court provides a temporary respite for Surjewala, allowing him to seek legal recourse to cancel the non-bailable warrant without the immediate threat of arrest.
