Ruckus at Indian court hearing student sedition case

Lawyers chanting nationalist slogans earlier barged into the compound and threw stones, defying a Supreme Court order banning protests after a punch-up at a hearing on Monday. He was stated to have been kicked and punched by a group of men in lawyers’ robes. The attack took place when JNU student leader Kanhaiya Kumar was being produced in the court.

Ten student organisations owing allegiance to different political parties on Wednesday pledged support to JNUSU student leader Kanhaiya Kumar, who was arrested on a sedition charge.

Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested after anti-India slogans were raised at an event held at the JNU campus on February 9 to commemorate the execution of parliament attack convict Afzal Guru.

Bilkulonline.com, New Delhi, Feb 17: As the controversy over JNU protests escalates, the government on Wednesday said it was “ready” to hear an “eloquent, powerful and constructive alternative voice” from the university. Though he identified one person as his assailant before the judge, the attacker walked away unhindered. “Hence, the home secretary, government of India; Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT are directed to submit urgent report within a week”.

“Indian National Congress strongly condemns the barbaric and inhuman attack in Patiala House Court yesterday on journalists, young students and teachers by BJP goons”, said Kapil Sibal, a senior party leader. “But if there is no evidence against me, there should be no media trial”, he said.

Kumar told the committee of lawyers sent by the Supreme Court to asses the situation in Patiala House Court that he was treated well by the police.

However, Sharma denied thrashing anybody, however stated that individuals who increase anti-India slogan must be punished. He has been remanded to judicial custody till March 2.

India’s sedition laws were drafted by its British colonial rulers to suppress the country’s freedom struggle and in recent years the country’s Supreme Court has said those laws should be invoked only when there is actual evidence of incitement to violence. “It is also alleged that the charge of sedition was falsely added to intimidate falsely added to intimate those who dissent”.