The Delhi high court on Friday stayed the trial court's order directing the city police to provide a copy of the FIR to an accused in the Parliament security breach case.
The high court noted the submission of the police that it is a case of “sensitive nature”, and as per a judgment of the Supreme Court, the FIRs in sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, and offences under POCSO Act are not to be uploaded on the website of the authorities.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice to accused Neelam Devi on the police's plea challenging the trial court's December 21 order directing the probe agency to furnish a copy of the FIR to the counsel for the accused as per law.
“This court, having considered the directions contained in the Supreme Court order, is of the opinion that as per the statement made at bar, Sections 16 and 18 of the UAPA have also been invoked against the present accused person, therefore, the FIR is not to be uploaded. In addition to the same, as per this judgment itself and the mandate of the directions the copy of the same could not have been given to the accused without following the procedure laid down…."
“In view thereof, the execution of the order dated December 21 stands stayed till the next date of hearing, that is, January 4. Issue notice to the accused for the next date,” the high court said.
Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act deals with punishment for terrorist act and section 18 relates to punishment for conspiracy.
Delhi government standing counsel (Criminal) Sanjay Lau contended that in sensitive matters, the accused has to approach the police commissioner who forms a committee to decide the application for providing a copy of the FIR and, if it is denied, they can move the court for relief.
However, the trial court erred in directing the police to provide the FIR copy to the accused and overlooked and bypassed the judgment of the Supreme Court as per which FIR cannot be supplied to the accused in sensitive cases.
“This is happening in several cases, the order of the Supreme Court is being flouted. This is a very sensitive matter, the security of Parliament has been breached by some persons.
“This is a second or third case where such directions have been passed and now the higher authorities want to challenge in the high court,” the police's counsel said.
The judge acknowledged that a similar order was passed by the trial court in the news portal NewsClick matter where the probe agency was asked to supply a copy of the FIR to the accused.
Lau said though the trial court order in the NewsClick case was not challenged, the higher authorities decided to contest this order because it involved a breach of Parliament security.
“The investigation is still going on and there are a lot of details which we do not want to disclose. Six persons have already been arrested and more are to be arrested. So, let the committee first decide it,” he submitted.
He said the committee is formed on a case to case basis and it is done within three days of receipt of the representation and is communicated to the aggrieved person.
On Thursday, the trial court extended till January 5 the custody of four accused -- Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde and Neelam Devi -- arrested in the Parliament security breach case.
On an application by Neelam, the trial court also directed the Investigating Officer (IO) to hand over a copy of the FIR to her counsel.
In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack on December 13, two of the accused -- Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D -- vaulted into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitor's gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters and shouted slogans before being overpowered by some MPs.
Around the same time, two others -- Amol Shinde and Neelam Devi -- sprayed coloured gas from canisters while shouting "tanashahi nahi chalegi" outside the Parliament House premises.
Besides the four accused, police have arrested Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat in the case. All the six accused are being interrogated in police custody.
As per the Supreme Court's 2016 judgment, the copies of FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website.
If there is no such website, on the official website of the state government concerned, within 24 hours of registration of the FIR so that the accused or any person connected with the case can download it and file appropriate application before the court for redress of their grievances, it said.
The judgment said in case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person aggrieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the state.
“The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the said grievance,” it said.
The top court has said in cases where decisions have been taken to not give copies of the FIR on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused/ his authorised representative to file an application for a certified copy before the court to which the FIR has been sent and it shall be provided in quite promptitude not beyond three days of the submission of the application.
