The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to issue directions allowing Red Fort terror attack co-accused Jasir Bilal Wani to meet his lawyer at the National Investigation Agency (NIA) headquarters. Wani is currently in the NIA’s custodial remand.
A bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the order after Wani’s lawyer, Kaustubh Chaturvedi, submitted that though the NIA had arrested him on November 17, and he was remanded to the NIA’s custody a day later, he was not allowed to meet a lawyer of his choice.Stressing the importance of following established judicial norms, the judge questioned the foundation of the plea. “Do you expect me to create my own procedure? I will not. This is not a special case,” Justice Sharma remarked, adding that the Court could not rely merely on oral claims that a lower court had dismissed the request.
The Bench further cautioned that entertaining such oral assertions would set a troubling precedent. “Why should I accept this? If someone simply says orally that their plea was rejected, everyone will do the same. There is a process we adhere to, and it cannot be altered for one individual,” the judge observed.Chaturvedi submitted that although a lawyer had attempted to meet Wani at the agency headquarters, the request was denied because permission from the sessions court was required for such a legal ‘mulaqat’ (meeting).
He added that he subsequently moved the sessions court with an application, but the judge declined to take it on record and orally said that such relief would not be granted. The counsel further noted that Wani’s father had passed away after his arrest, making the meeting essential so that he could be informed of the news.Advocate Kaustubh Chaturvedi, representing Wani, argued that a lawyer had attempted to meet the accused at the NIA headquarters but was denied access on the grounds that no court order permitted such a meeting.
He submitted that an application was later filed before the Patiala House Courts, which the Sessions Judge allegedly rejected orally, thereby infringing Wani’s constitutional rights.The High Court, however, remained unconvinced, noting that no written order or supporting material had been produced.“You say you approached the Sessions Judge and were denied relief, but where is the record? Nothing has been placed before us,” Justice Sharma pointed out. Nevertheless, the Bench agreed to consider an alternative request and directed the trial court to hear Wani’s application and issue appropriate orders in accordance with law.
However, NIA’s lawyer opposed the petition, stating that Wani had not exhausted all his remedies and had directly approached the high court.Taking these submissions into account, the court observed that the fact that the application was not taken on record or that the trial court orally refused relief could not justify entertaining the present petition or establish that Wani had exhausted the remedies available before the trial court. The bench emphasised that a constitutional procedure was in place and could not be altered to create a separate process for him.
Follow us
