Neelam Azad, an accused arrested in connection with the December 13 Parliament security breach case, has approached the Delhi High Court, alleging that her police remand was illegal. She claims that she was not allowed to consult a legal practitioner of her choice during the trial court proceedings.
In her petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, directing her production before the high court and an order to “set her at liberty,” Azad asserts that the denial of her right to choose a lawyer constitutes a violation of her fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, rendering the remand order unlawful. The trial court has remanded her in police custody until January 5.
The matter is expected to be brought up for an urgent hearing before a vacation bench of the high court on Thursday.
Under Indian laws, a detainee or their representative can file a habeas corpus petition in a high court or the Supreme Court if they believe they have been unlawfully detained. If the court concludes that the detention is illegal upon production, it can order the release of the individual.
The plea, filed through lawyer Suresh Kumar, alleges, “Upon her arrest, the petitioner’s family wasn’t informed. It was informed only in the evening of 14.12.2023. Further, she wasn’t permitted to meet any person, including advocates, which is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Even at the court, a single DLSA (Delhi Legal Services Authority) counsel was appointed to all the accused persons without giving them any choice among counsels.”
“The remand order dated 21.12.2023 is illegal and violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates the accused person to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Whereas in the present case, the petitioner’s advocate wasn’t permitted to take instructions and defend the petitioner prior to the disposal of the remand application,” adds the plea.
The petition also notes that she was produced before the trial court on December 14 “after a period of 29 hours from the time of arrest.”
Article 22(2) of the Constitution states that every person arrested and detained in custody should be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate. No person shall be detained in custody beyond this period without the authority of a magistrate.
On December 21, the trial court extended the police custody of four accused, including Azad, arrested in the Parliament security breach case, until January 5. The city police argued the need to uncover all those involved in the conspiracy. While the four were arrested on the day of the incident, two others were apprehended later.
Recently, the high court stayed the trial court’s direction to the police to supply a copy of the FIR to Azad, citing the sensitive nature of the case. According to a Supreme Court judgment, FIRs in cases of sexual offenses, insurgency, terrorism, and those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act are not to be uploaded on the website of the authorities.
In a significant security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack on December 13, two individuals, Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D, jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour. They released yellow gas from canisters and shouted slogans before being overpowered by some MPs. Simultaneously, two others, Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad, sprayed colored gas from canisters while shouting “tanashahi nahi chalegi” outside the Parliament House premises.
In addition to the four accused mentioned, police have also arrested Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat in the case. All are currently being interrogated in police custody.
