Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Friday, the Delhi High Court informed that the Delhi Government had approved the appointment of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and other counsel from the Central Government as Special Prosecutor/Special Counsel in a Delhi riot case
The statement was made before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Judges Vipin Sanghi and Rajnish Bhatnagar in a habeas corpus petition concerning the alleged illegality of custody of the accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
The FIR was part of an anti-CAA protest in the Jafarabad area of North Delhi on 22 February. When a notice was given on the matter, the Court noted that there was a lack of clarity.
The Delhi Government argued that it was only on the advice and advice of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Delhi that the Lieutenant Governor could exercise the power under Section 24(8) of the CrPC to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor / Special Counsel.
The Lieutenant Governor did not have any independent power to make such appointments, it was stated. It was added that the above position was also accepted by the Delhi Police as it requested the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor / Special Counsel to the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of Delhi.
The Delhi Government then brought to the attention of the Court the approval granted to the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor in the present case.
It was informed that, on 29 May, the Deputy Secretary (Home) of the Delhi Government had written to the Deputy Commissioner for Police (Legal Cell) informing that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with the Deputy Solicitor General Maninder Acharya and Aman Lekhi; Standing Counsel Amit Mahajan and Advocate Rajat Nair had been appointed Special Public Prosecutor / Special Counsel to represent the Delhi Police in the House of Commons.
The Central Government argued that the approval of the Home Ministry, the Delhi Government, had been obtained in order to avoid controversy and did not necessarily reflect the understanding of the Central Government with regard to the interpretation of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of State.
In the present case, the sister of the petitioner was in custody on charges relating to UAPA. Since the Special Courts had not been sitting during the lock-up due to the suspended functioning of the courts, the custody of the petitioner 's sister was unlawful and unauthorized. The petitioner was represented by Advocates Mehmood Pracha, Shariq Nisar and Jatin Bhatt.
86540
103860
630
114
59824