Mehmood Pracha Recourses To Heckling, Delhi High Court Refuses Hearing Gulfisha’s Plea Due To This

CASE PROCCEDINGS

• A Division Bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani refused to hear student activist Gulfisha Fatima’s plea on her alleged illegal detention in the Delhi Riots case, after her advocate Mehmood Pracha took recourse to heckling and placing dependency on facts which were not on record.
• The Court remarked that it would not be addressed by someone who does not know the basics of law. Fatima had claimed in her habeas corpus petition that her detention under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, for being part of a bigger conspiracy in the north-east Delhi riots was illegal and therefore, she should be released.

CASE BACKGROUND

• Amit Mahajan, the advocate on Delhi police told the Court that habeas corpus petition preferred by Fatima’s brother last year, was also dismissed by the High Court as well and thereby, the present petition was not thus maintainable.
• Pracha told the Court that an appeal against the same was withdrawn with permission from the Hon’ble Supreme Court to approach the High Court. She called the present petition a second salvo, a second round of fight, on the same relief.
• The Court interrogated its maintainability and requested Pracha to take recourse to the remedy available in law.
• The Court remarked, “On the same facts and circumstances, we can’t open this judgement. Tell the trial court that. You can’t keep filing fresh habeas corpus. We are not saying you don’t have a remedy. When it is not maintainable, it is not maintainable. You can’t jump the gun and come here.”

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

• Pracha acquiesced that Fatima was in an ongoing illegal detention and a Sessions Court did not have the power to extend remand, but only a Special Court under the NIA Act did.
• The Court then stated that once there is a remand order, whether it be right or wrong, it must not be set aside in a habeas corpus proceeding.
• Pracha then went ahead saying that alleging of that date, there was no remand order in this present case.

What do you think of this case? Share your thoughts with us in the comments section below!