Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday 'dismissed' a plea by Neelam Azad, an accused woman arrested in the December 13 Parliament security breach case, who alleged that her police remand was illegal as she was not allowed to consult a legal practitioner of her choice to defend her during the trial court proceedings.

At the outset, the counsel for the Delhi Police opposed the plea on maintainability. "The prayer is not maintainable, whereas this issue is already pending before the trial court," he added.

Counsel for Neelam Azad submitted, "We are challenging the remand order. I was not allowed to talk to my lawyer. They restrained me from talking to the lawyer. It is an admitted fact; its in the status report."

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said, "For the relief sought in the present petition, the petitioner has already moved an application before the trial court...Petition is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly". 

In her petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing her production before the high court as well as an order to "set her at liberty," Azad said not allowing her to consult a lawyer of her choice amounted to a violation of her fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, making the remand order unlawful.

The plea further challenged the legality of the remand order passed by the trial court dated December 21 on the ground that she wasn't allowed to consult the legal practitioner of her choice to defend her during the proceeding of the remand application moved by the Delhi Police. It further stated that it is a settled principle of law that the rights enshrined under provisions (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India activate as soon as the arrest is made.

The state was under obligation to enable the petitioner to consult a legal practitioner of her choice right after her arrest, but the same wasn't complied with; rather, the state had been opposing the petitioner's right to consult her advocate till December 21.

Notably, the high court last week stayed the trial court order directing Delhi Police to supply an FIR copy to one of the accused, Neelam Azad.

The Delhi Police had moved the high court, challenging the trial court order directing it to supply a copy of the FIR to Azad. The Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, after noting the submissions of Delhi Police, ordered that the trial court's directions be stayed till January 4, 2024.

On December 21, a Delhi court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur at Patiala House, directed the Delhi Police to provide accused Neelam Azad with a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) related to the Parliament security breach case. Despite strong opposition from Special Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh, the court passed the order.

Neelam Azad, along with three other accused—Sagar Sharma, Manoranjan D, and Amol Shinde—were arrested by Delhi Police on December 13. Sharma and Manoranjan D had entered the Lok Sabha chamber with canisters emitting smoke during a protest outside the parliament building. As their initial custody period ended, the court granted an extension of 15 days to Delhi Police for their remand.

The trial court has remanded her in police custody until January 5, 2024.

Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State of (NCT of Delhi)