Mehmood Pracha resorted to 'heckling': Justice Siddharth Mridul refuses to hear Delhi Riots accused Gulfisha Fatima's Habeas Corpus plea

Read Time: 04 minutes

The Delhi High Court bench led by Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani refused to hear habeas corpus plea filed by Delhi Riots accused Gulfisha Fatima and listed the matter before another bench.

The bench showing displeasure said " we will list the matter before another bench. we don't want to be addressed by a counsel who does not know the basics of law."

The court also recorder in the order that Adv Mahmood Pracha appearing for Gulfisha resorted to heckling instead of answering to the questions put forth by the bench.

Pracha argued that the custody of Fatima had become illegal as per the Apex Court's decisions in Vikramjit Singh's case and it was for the Police to prove that the custody was legal and if it failed to prove the legality of Gulfisha's custody, she was entitled to be released.

The bench however said that Gulfisha had exhausted her remedy and according to the Supreme Court's Judgement in Rahul Modi's case, once a remand order is out one cannot prefer a habeas corpus plea whether the order is right or wrong. The judgement clearly pointed out that a remand order can be challenged only in an appellate or revisional proceeding. It cannot be challenged in a habeas corpus plea.

Pracha however argued that no remand order had been passed.

The bench said that there was no such submissions in the pleadings. The Court further said "you are addressing a Court not a rally. You file an affidavit stating there’s no remand order."

Pracha said he would file an affiadvit stating that no remand order was passed and asked the court to record his statements but the Court refused to do so and listed the matter befiore another bench subject to consent of the Chief Justice.

On April 11, Gulfisha was arrested on charges under various sections of UAPA for her alleged “larger conspiracy” in connection with the Delhi violence and is currently under judicial custody. She has claimed that her detention in judicial custody is “illegal and invalid.”

 

Case Title: Gulfisha Fatima vs State