ORDER : 10.30 a.m. List the matter today at 2.00 p.m. 2.00 p.m. 2. A mention was made in the morning by Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel representing the Delhi High Court that the pen drive containing the visuals recorded by one of the members of the Advocates Committee appointed by this Court(Shri Harin Raval), obviously contains visuals of the learned Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi who was present in the Patiala House Court Complex on 17th February, 2016. In view of the fact that the Registrar General is a Judicial Officer and the fact that the moment the copies of the pen drive are made available to the public, they are likely to attract public attention. Therefore, learned Registrar General prays that appropriate directions be given to conceal his identity in the copies of the visual data to be supplied to the parties pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 22nd February, 2016. 3. In view of the fact that the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court was present in the Patiala House Court Complex in discharge of his duties pursuant to an Order of this Court and having regard to his claim of privacy, we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to take such appropriate technical measure masking the identity of the person of the Registrar General Delhi High Court while supplying the copies of the visual data to the parties. 4. Shri Harin Raval, learned senior counsel who recorded the above-mentioned visual submitted that the basic recording was done on his mobile phone(I-Phone) and in view of the pendency of the proceedings, since the data contained in the I-Phone constitutes the original document, appropriate orders be passed with regard to the original document. 5. In the circumstances, to avoid any future dispute regarding the authenticity of the content of the pen drive which is already deposited with the Registry of this Court, we direct that Mr. Raval will hand over his mobile phone for the purpose of comparison to one of the Officers of the Registry (Shri Ashok T. Ukrani, Additional Registrar) who will compare the content of the original recording in Sh. Raval's mobile phone with the content of the pen drive. After being satisfied that the content of the pen drive is a true copy of the original content of the mobile phone of Sh. Raval's mobile phone with the content of the pen drive. After being satisfied that the content of the pen drive is a true copy of the original content of the mobile phone of Sh. Raval, make copies of the pen drive and preserve the original pen drive in a sealed cover after taking such appropriate necessary technical precautions to protect the content of the pen drive. Such sealed cover shall not be opened except by the Orders of this Court. The mobile phone of Shri Raval get returned to him. 6. For the purpose of comparing the authenticity of the pen drive, Shri Ukrani will also permit the presence of Sh. Raval and one of the Advocates to be nominated by Shri Sidharth Luthra. 7. List the matter on 10th March, 2016. Order Dated 22.2.2016. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ORDER Dated 18-02-2016 Pursuant to the orders passed at 4.00 p.m. yesterday, i.e. on 17th February, 2016, following reports have been submitted:- (i) two copies on behalf of the administration of the Delhi High Court by the learned senior counsel Shri Sidharth Luthra; (ii) another report containing two copies by Shri Harin P. Raval on behalf of the Committee of the lawyers appointed by an order of this Court yesterday, i.e. on 17th February, 2016; (iii) a sealed cover has been handed over by Ms. Vrinda Grover, one of the learned counsel appearing for the accused Kanhaiya Kumar in the trial Court. According to Ms. Grover, the cover contains her narrative of the incidents that occurred in the Patiala Court complex yesterday, i.e. on 17th February, 2016. 2. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Commissioner of Police, Delhi submits that his report would be placed before this Court as directed earlier. 3. All the reports are kept in a sealed cover. Grover, the cover contains her narrative of the incidents that occurred in the Patiala Court complex yesterday, i.e. on 17th February, 2016. 2. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Commissioner of Police, Delhi submits that his report would be placed before this Court as directed earlier. 3. All the reports are kept in a sealed cover. To consider the content of the material and also to consider whether copies of the same could be handed over to all the concerned, this matter be listed on Monday, the 22nd February, 2016. 4. When this matter was being heard, a mention was made on behalf of Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel representing the accused Kanhaiya Kumar that he has already moved a Writ Petition(Crl.) D. No. 6331/2016 under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking certain reliefs and the same may be taken up at an early date. 5. Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel mentioned another writ petition D. No. 6308 filed by another practising lawyer of this Court Shri Subhash Chandra and stated that the same may be taken up at an early date in the context of a controversy in writ petition No. 25/2016. 6. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to list the above mentioned two writ petitions tomorrow, i.e. on 19th February, 2016 at 10.30 a.m. 7. It may also be placed on record that Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Chairman of the Bar Council of India also appeared today and made a submission that Bar Council of India is also taking note of the serious developments that took place in the Patiala Court Complex in the last few days. The Bar Council of India want to place its views on record. Permission is granted to the Bar Council of India to place documents on record by Monday, the 22nd February, 2016. ORDER Dated 17-02-2016 This writ petition is filed with the various prayers, in substance seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to ensure a proper and decorus conduct of the proceedings in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in connection with FIR No. 110/16 filed at P.S. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi regarding an incident which allegedly took place in the campus of JNU. 2. On 15th February, 2016, when the accused by name Mr. 2. 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. 3. It is in the background of the above-mentioned facts the instant writ petition came to be filed. 4. We are informed that the above-mentioned case of Kanhaiya Kumar is to be taken up again by the concerned Magistrate at 2.00 p.m. today, i.e. 17th February, 2016. In view of the incidents that occurred on 15th February, 2016, apprehensions were expressed before this Court on behalf of the various interested groups-students, members of the press, general public, legal fraternity, etc.- that the proceedings may not go on in an atmosphere in which legal proceedings are normally expected to be conducted. Therefore, the various learned counsel representing the various interested groups referred to above unanimously submitted that appropriate directions regarding the conduct of proceedings be given to ensure that the proceedings in the above-mentioned case are conducted in accordance with law. 5. Having regard to the various allegations made and the submissions of the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that in order to ensure conduct of the proceedings before the trial Court are undertaken today in a ordinarily manner, it is necessary to regulate the entry of people in the Court. 6. Before we pronounced this order, we have indicated broadly the nature of orders which we are proposed to pass and the learned counsel who made submissions in connection with this matter today broadly agreed with the proposed directions. 7. We are informed that administrative side of the Delhi High Court which is the authority of the Superintendence over the trial Court is also meeting today at 2.00 p.m. to consider the matter and appropriate administrative measures in this regard. 8. We, therefore, direct that insofar as today's proceedings are concerned, only the lawyers either Advocates on Record or senior counsel representing either the prosecution or the accused only shall be permitted into the Court hall. A list of lawyers, six in number, representing the accused is handed over to the Court:- 1. Mr. Sushil Bajaj, Adv. 2. Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. 3. Mr. A list of lawyers, six in number, representing the accused is handed over to the Court:- 1. Mr. Sushil Bajaj, Adv. 2. Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. 3. Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. 4. Mr. Prabhu, Adv. 5. Mr. Bankim, Adv. 6. Ms. Vrinda Grover, Adv. 9. Since the accused is a young student, we also deem it appropriate to permit the immediate family members of the accused, not exceeding four, on an identification by the accused. If such family members are not there, then one from the faculty and one from the student community identified by the accused shall be permitted into the Court(if they are present). 10. Insofar as the journalists community is concerned, having regard to the constraints of the space in the Court hall, we deem it appropriate to permit only 5 members from the said community into the Court hall at the time of the proceedings and the following names have been submitted by Ms. Bhadra Sinha and Mr. Pramod Kumar(Journalists) who are present in the Court today representing the community of journalists and they have submitted the following 5 names of the journalists who may be permitted to be present in the trial Court room at 2.00 p.m. when the proceedings are on:- 1. Mr. Abhishek Anshu, PTI 2. Mr. Amiya Kumar Khushwaha, IANS 3. Mr. Arvind Singh, ANI 4. Mr. Suchitra Mohanty, Reuters 5. Mr. Anil Punia, DD News 11. We are also informed that there is a possibility of a large gathering of various groups including the students and political parties at the Court when the matter is taken up. We are inclined to agree with such anticipation and we, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to take such appropriate measures as he may deem fit to maintain the law and order situation in accordance with law. 12. Insofar as various groups of persons who are permitted to enter the Court premises the identification shall be made by the concerned with each of the groups before Mr. Goel, learned Registrar General of the Delhi High Court who will personally be present in the Patiala Court today at 1.30 p.m. Only on the certification of the Registrar, each one of identified persons as indicated above will be allowed to enter the Court. We also direct none of the persons entering the Court hall shall carry a mobile phone. Goel, learned Registrar General of the Delhi High Court who will personally be present in the Patiala Court today at 1.30 p.m. Only on the certification of the Registrar, each one of identified persons as indicated above will be allowed to enter the Court. We also direct none of the persons entering the Court hall shall carry a mobile phone. The Commissioner of Police shall take appropriate steps in this regard. 13. We also deem it appropriate that the decision taken by the Delhi High Court Administrative Committee shall also be brought on record within a week after the decision is recorded. 14. A copy of this order shall be made available to Shri A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel who represent the Delhi High Court, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. Farrukh Rashid who undertake to enter appearance on behalf of the learned counsel and one copy to Ms. Bhadra Sinha, media personnel. 15. Issue notice in the writ petition. 16. List the matter on Monday, 22nd February, 2016. 17. We must also place it on record that while the proceedings were going on in the morning, there was considerable amount of concern and agitation among the members present in the Court hall. At some stage there was certain commotion as one of the members present shouted certain slogans at a pitch which is not normally permitted in the Court. Later, the person named Rajiv Yadav (Advocate) who created the commotion, tendered an unconditional apology. We accept the apology and close the matter. At 2.15 p.m. 18. Around 2.15 p.m. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel made an extraordinary mention in the court that in spite of the order passed in the forenoon today in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 25/2016, a tense situation is building up in the Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi where a group of lawyers and others are resorting to violence threatening the security of the accused Kanhaiya Kumar (against whom an FIR is lodged being 110/16 filed at P.S. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi) and his counsel. The learned Magistrate in the Patiala House Courts Complex where the proceedings were going, in order to ensure the safety of those persons, has directed the accused Kanhaiya and his counsel to take shelter in his chambers. The learned Magistrate in the Patiala House Courts Complex where the proceedings were going, in order to ensure the safety of those persons, has directed the accused Kanhaiya and his counsel to take shelter in his chambers. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for appropriate directions be given in the situation to rescue the accused and his lawyers. 19. A mention was also made that even the 5 journalists who went in the Court Hall are also afraid of their safety. 20. In view of this, we called upon Mr. Ajit K. Sinha, learned senior counsel who represent the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to contact the Commissioner of Police and obtain instructions as to the situation prevailing in the Patiala House Courts Complex. Initially for some time Mr. Sinha was not able to contact him (understandably because of the situation). Later Mr. Sinha contacted him and took instructions about the prevailing situation. 21. In the above mentioned circumstances, We thought it fit to depute some members of the Bar of this Court to observe the situation and report to this Court. We also believe the presence of the senior advocates might help diffuse the tension. We accordingly depute Mr.Kapil Sibal,Sr. Adv., Dr.Rajeev Dhawan,Sr. Adv., Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr.Adv., Mr. H.P. Rawal, Sr.Adv., Mr. Ajit K. Sinha, Sr. Adv. and Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel to proceed to the Patiala House Courts Complex and report the situation prevailing there. At 4.00 p.m. 22. The members of the Committee who visited the Patiala House Courts Complex pursuant to the orders passed earlier returned at about 4.00 p.m. today and made an oral report, the events they observed. We request them to submit a report in writing. We also request Mr. Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for Delhi High Court to submit a report of the observations made by the Registrar General of the Delhi High court who was present in the proceedings in the noon in the Patiala House court Complex by 2.00 p.m. tomorrow (18.2.2016). Mr. Ajit K. Sinha, Sr. Adv representing Commissioner of Police, Delhi will also submit a report by Friday the 19th February, 2016 by 10.30 a.m. 23. Mr. Mr. Ajit K. Sinha, Sr. Adv representing Commissioner of Police, Delhi will also submit a report by Friday the 19th February, 2016 by 10.30 a.m. 23. Mr. Sinha, further submitted on instructions that he has spoken to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and the Commissioner of Police has personally assured the safety of the accused and all others who were permitted to attend today's proceedings before the trial court pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the morning today. We also direct that Commissioner of Police shall take necessary steps to ensure the safety of the accused until he is produced next before the trial court. 24. We may place on record that it is reported today by the members of the Committee that the accused was manhandled while he was produced before the Court today. We therefore make it clear that the responsibility is exclusively is that of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to ensure the safety of the accused. 25. List the matter tomorrow the 18th February, 2016 at 2.00 p.m.