Was it wrong to move SC directly?
NEW DELHI: JNU students’ union leader Kanhaiya Kumar’s lawyers appear to have adopted a wrong strategy of directly approaching the Supreme Court for bail without exhausting all available remedies before the trial courts and the Delhi high court.
The Supreme Court was quick to refuse to entertain his plea under Article 32 of Constitution – a tool for enforcement of fundamental rights.
“You are leading a dangerous proposition. If this court will entertain it (bail plea bypassing courts below), it will become a precedent which will be available to all the accused in the country,” the SC said, asking the JNUSU president to approach the HC.
“Wherever there will be sensitive cases involving political persons or prominent persons or others...you know the atmosphere in the court…So in every case if it is said that Supreme Court is the only court (to hear the matter), it would be a dangerous precedent,” a bench of justice J Chelameswar and justice AM Sapre said.
“Remember, this is not the only case of this type,” it remarked.
The bench was in agreement with Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar that hearing of the bail plea by the SC would send a wrong message that the high court was incapable looking into the matter.
Normally, bail pleas are not entertained directly by the SC as litigants have to exhaust the legal remedies available to them. However, in exceptional cases the SC can entertain such petitions under Article 32 of Constitution.
The only known example of the SC directly entertaining a petition was in 2010 when the then Tata group chief Ratan Tata moved SC seeking action against those involved in the leakage of tapes containing his conversation with corporate lobbyist Nira Radia.