ORDER : When the matter is taken up today, apart from the various reports received earlier, we have received today (i) a copy of the report of the Administrative Committee meeting held on 16th February, 2016 at Delhi High Court and the decision taken therein; (ii) an affidavit filed on behalf of the Bar Council of India sworn by Joint Secretary, Bar Council of India; (iii) report of the Advocates appearing for the accused Kanhaiya Kumar regarding the events that took place on 17.2.2016 at Patiala House Court Complex premises. It may be mentioned here that though this report was furnished earlier but it was signed only by five Advocates out of the six Advocates as one of the six advocates was not available earlier. Therefore, another copy signed by six lawyers who appeared for the accused in the trial Court is filed today. 2. Various learned counsel appearing in the matter prayed that the copies of all the reports be supplied to each one of them to enable them to make their submissions in the matter. None of the parties submitting the reports has any objection in supplying the same to others. However, Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel representing the Delhi High Court submitted that the proceedings of the Administrative Committee are basically meant for the administrative guidance of the Court and they did not deal with the actual occurrence that took place on that day. Therefore, supplying the copies of the same-in the context of the incidents that are being debated in the case-may not be necessary. We make it clear that the learned counsel does not claim any privilege but only made a submission on the propriety of parting with the administrative records of the High Court. 3. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to supply copies of all the reports received by this Court except the proceedings of the Administrative Committee of the Delhi High Court to Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D.S. Mahra, learned counsel appearing for State of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Police, Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the High Court, Mr. Ashwani Kr. Dubey, Adv., Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad representing Bar Council of India, Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. representing All India Bar Association and Mr. Deepa Prakash E., as follows:- 1. Incident report dated 17.2.2016 signed by Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the High Court, Mr. Ashwani Kr. Dubey, Adv., Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad representing Bar Council of India, Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. representing All India Bar Association and Mr. Deepa Prakash E., as follows:- 1. Incident report dated 17.2.2016 signed by Mr. D.S. Mahra, respondent No. 2-given by learned Solicitor General. 2. Report/affidavit on behalf of Bar Council of India given by Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra. 3. Transcription of video recording, report of the Committee appointed vide order dated 17.2.2016 given by Mr. Rawal, one of the Committee members visiting the site. 4. Report given by Ms. Vrinda Grover as witnessed by lawyers representing Kanhaiya Kumar at Patiala House Courts 5. Separate incident report dated 17.2.2016 filed by Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. (given in the Court on 19/2/2016). 6. Report of the Registrar General, Delhi High Court (given in the Court on 19/2/2016). 4. An oral prayer made for permission to file an application for impleadment by Karkardooma Bar Association is rejected. 5. In the list of report, the Advocate's Committee Report has supplied a pen drive containing visuals as recorded by one of the members of the Committee. The copies of the same be also supplied to all the above-mentioned learned counsel. 6. The Registry is directed to supply the copies within three days from today. 7. We are also informed that the bail application moved by Kanhaiya Kumar is going to be taken up by the Delhi High Court tomorrow, i.e. 23rd February, 2016. Needless to say that the High Court will examine the application on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the comments made in any of the reports mentioned above. 8. On 17th February, 2016 at 10.30 a.m., it was stated in para 2 which is as under:- "On 15th February, 2016, when the accused by name Mr. Kanhaiya Kumar was produced before the above-mentioned Court, a lot of people gathered including the members of the legal fraternity, students and their "supporters" and a large number of media persons. Certain unpleasant and unacceptable incidents are said to have taken place in the Court premises which received wide media coverage thereafter." 9. Kanhaiya Kumar was produced before the above-mentioned Court, a lot of people gathered including the members of the legal fraternity, students and their "supporters" and a large number of media persons. Certain unpleasant and unacceptable incidents are said to have taken place in the Court premises which received wide media coverage thereafter." 9. Learned Solicitor General brought to our notice that as a matter of fact on 15th February, 2016, the accused Kanhaiya Kumar was not in fact produced before the Patiala House Court Complex but he was only scheduled to be produced there. The order is corrected accordingly. 10. Crl MP No. 3293 of 2016 (Application for permission to impead as party respondent) is allowed. List on 10th March, 2016.