Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At AdjournmentsIn Delhi RiotsCase: If Solicitor General Is Not Available, Making Alternative Arrangements

The Supreme Court in the case State of NCT of Delhi & Ors vs Asif Iqbal Tanha & Ors. vs.SLP observed and has expressed displeasure at the Delhi Police wherein seeking adjournment in the Delhi riots conspiracy case on the ground of the unavailability of the Solicitor General of India. The bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice AS Oka observed and has informed the counsel appearing for the Central Government that if the Solicitor General is unavailable, the bench should made the alternative arrangements. In the present case, the bench was considering an appeal filed by the Delhi Police against the Delhi High Court order granting bail to student activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha. Therefore, the Impleadment applications have also been filed by some co-accused persons in the said case in view of the earlier direction of the Top Court that the judgement of the Delhi High Court should not be used as a precedent in other cases. The court observed that earlier when the matter was called upon for the first time, no one appeared for the Delhi Police, which reports to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. It was then decided by the bench to passover the matter for the later part of the day. When the said matter came to the court again at 4 PM, It has been submitted by the counsel, Advocate Rajat Nair appearing for the Union that the Learned SG was here, my lords. Thus, the Constitution Bench has just started and he had to rush with Mr. Sibal. Adding to which the bench headed by Justice Kaul remarked that, I saw him. But the point being how will this be heard? Further, it has been remarked by Justice Kaul that, So somebody else should come. Make alternative arrangements. In many matters the SG must be required and in the said matter for the Solicitor General? The court don’t even know that. Last time also this court asked you to make alternative arrangements. In its order, the bench stated that Once again the position is as on the last date of hearing. The Solicitor General was not there, when the matter was called on the first occasion and when it is called again it is stated that he was present sometime before and has again gone away. The Solicitor General might be busy in many matters and this we have mentioned that alternative arrangements must be made. Therefore, if during the next date of hearing alternative arrangements are not made, the said court will presume that the government has nothing to say in the matter.

Latest news

Related news