New Delhi, Feb. Feb 17 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday counselled “moderation” instead of taking “extreme positions” in dealing with the situation arising from the arrest of JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar and charging him with sedition.
Telling the rival counsel that a “blame game would not help anybody”, a bench of Justice J.Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre said: “Moderation seems to be the best option.”
The court’s observation came in the course of rival counsel contesting each other’s version including blaming police inaction in dealing with the violence unleased by a section of lawyers.
Referring to the incident in the Madras High Court where security of the court premises was handed over to the Central Reserve Police Force, the court said that police is blamed either way whether it acts or not.
The court’s observations came as senior counsel K.T.S. Tulsi who leads the team of lawyers defending Kanhaiya Kumar told the court that violence in court premises was totally “unacceptable” and that the beating of journalists in Patiala House Court complex on February 15 has “severely jolted the sanctity of the judicial proceedings”.
While counsel Prashant Bhushan described the attack on the media persons and the JNU students by a section of lawyers as a “fascist onslaught”, senior counsel Rajeev Dhawan said that “court of justice can’t function if hoodlums are inside and outside the court. It vitiates the atmosphere”.
The court witnessed an advocate shouting slogans as lawyer R.P. Luthra sought to tell the court that a section of lawyers in Patiala House Court complex got infuriated after slogans were raised in support of executed parliament attack convict Afzal Guru.
The displeased court stopped the hearing for some time to know who was the person who had raised slogans.
As the court was told that he had vanished, it said that if the said person had the courage then he should voluntarily come forward and admit to his conduct.
Later lawyer Rajiv Yadav appeared before the court and offdered an unconditional apology which was accepted by the court.
“We must also place it on record that while the proceedings were going on in the morning, there was considerable amount of concern and agitation among the members present in the court hall. At some stage, there was a certain commotion as one of the members present shouted certain slogans at a pitch which is not normally permitted in the court.
“Later, the person named Rajiv Yadav(advocate) who created the commotion, tendered an unconditional apology. We accept the apology and close the matter,” the court said in its order.