HC revokes transfer of judge hearing the north-east Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy' case
The High Court had on May 30 transferred ASJ Bajpai, who had been hearing arguments on the framing of charges in the February 2020 communal violence 'larger conspiracy' case in a Karkardooma court on a daily basis since September last year, to the Saket courts complex as part of a routine transfer process.
He was replaced by ASJ Lalit Kumar, who, on June 2, had ordered fresh hearings in the matter.
The development is likely to speed up one of Delhi's most high-profile trials in connection with the violence in several parts of north-east Delhi, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The transfer of ASJ Bajpai had drawn criticism from lawyers who felt that the move would cause the trial, which has already been delayed due to pending investigations and judicial transfers, to further slow down.
'The pace at which the case is moving can be gauged by the fact that of the 18 accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, among other charges, most have been in jail for over four years,' said a lawyer on condition of anonymity.
The 'larger conspiracy' case is among the many pertaining to the riots and is so named because Delhi Police, which is probing the matter, has claimed that the violence was part of a 'deep-rooted conspiracy'. Key accused in the case include former Delhi councillor Tahir Hussain, student activists Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, and Natasha Narwal.
2,500 arrested so far
In the months following the riots, the police arrested over 2,500 people in various cases based on CCTV footage and testimonies of victims and eyewitnesses.
During the four years of trials, the city courts gave bail to more than 2,000 people. Several trial courts also made adverse comments about the police's 'shoddy' investigations.
The arguments over the framing of charges began in 2024, a year after the filing of the chargesheet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
As bar associations go after courtroom imposters in black & white, concerns about ‘overreach'
'No clerk, litigant, or member of the general public is permitted to wear a white shirt and black pants,' the notice stated, declaring the attire 'strictly reserved' for advocates as a symbol of professional identity. In an effort to clamp down on the worrying trend of touts and fake lawyers misleading and defrauding litigants, the Rohini Court Bar Association (RCBA) issued a notice 15 July, prohibiting non-lawyers from wearing white shirts and black trousers within the court premises. New Delhi: From Shahdara to Gurugram, court bar associations are imposing attire restrictions after a surge in non-lawyers posing as advocates — triggering fresh debate on freedom, formality, and access to justice. 'A number of touts are falsely representing themselves as official advocates or clerks… These individuals are misleading and defrauding uneducated litigants under false pretence,' the RCBA said. A month earlier, the Gurgaon Bar Association passed a similar resolution, emphasising that only enrolled advocates or duly authorised law interns are permitted to wear the professional dress code — white shirt and black trousers, salwar suit, or sari—as per Bar Council of India (BCI) norms. According to the resolution dated 5 June, violators now face a Rs 5,000 penalty, and the rule is strictly enforced inside the district court complex. In November 2022, the Shahdara Bar Association of Delhi introduced a new dress code for interns—white shirt and blue coat and trousers. This was done keeping in mind the confusion and mix up between advocates and interns as a large number of interns visit the court. But this order was set aside by the Delhi High Court which said a standard uniform should be mandated across the board as varying dress codes set by different bar associations would create confusion and difficulties for interns. Thus, the uniform prescribed by the Bar Council of Delhi would be followed uniformly across Delhi. In November 2018, a Delhi High Court judge set aside a similar notice issued by the Rohini Bar Association directing interns not to wear black coats. Even though there have been debates about change in the formal attire due to the excessive summer heat—discussions about litigant's clothing have been uncommon. Also Read: Gurugram Bar cracks down on courtroom impersonators with a 'black & white' ban The colonial legacy The black-and-white dress code—black coat, white shirt, neckband—was inherited by the Indian legal system from the British colonial tradition. The tradition of wearing uniforms in courts is centuries-old. In England, judges began wearing wigs around 1650, although robes had already been in use even earlier. After Independence, India did away with the wig but retained black coats and robes as part of courtroom attire. Under the Advocates Act of 1961, it is compulsory for lawyers in India to wear a black coat or robe along with a white neckband. Wearing a gown is optional, except when appearing before the Supreme Court or high courts. Over the years, this uniform has become the visual shorthand for a lawyer in India — both inside courtrooms and in popular culture. But that symbolic power is now being undermined. The crisp black coat and white shirt are more than just fashion. In India, they're a badge of authority. In Bollywood or TV, anyone in black-and-white is instantly assumed to be a powerful lawyer character—think Jolly LLB or Damini. According to the Bar Council of India 'an advocate shall appear in court only in the dress prescribed and his appearance should always be presentable'. The Advocates Act, 1961, along with the Bar Council of India Rules, outlines the dress code for advocates in India. For male advocates , a black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan (knee-length jacket), black sherwani, and white bands with an advocate's gown. Alternatively, a black open-breast coat, white collar (stiff or soft), and white bands with an advocate's gown. Long trouser —white, black, striped, or grey—or a dhoti. For female advocates, a black full- or half-sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar (stiff or soft), and white bands with an advocate's gown. Alternatively, sarees or long skirts in white, black, or any mellow or subdued colour without any print or design or flares in white, black, black-striped, or grey. But the rules, while clear for advocates, are silent on what litigants or the general public can or cannot wear. Who owns the black & white? Traditionally, litigants were expected to dress 'formally' in courts, out of respect for the proceedings. But now, some worry these colour restrictions could affect people simply trying to dress appropriately. The recent curbs raise questions about dress codes being enforced beyond legal professionals. 'While the RCBA's intention to prevent impersonation is understandable, enforcing a prohibition on basic attire—white shirts and black trousers — across all court visitors strays into arbitrary overreach,' Delhi-based advocate Urja Pandey told ThePrint. Furthermore, these are common everyday wear in India, worn by students, clerks, office workers, and even children, she explained. 'Banning them impinges on ordinary citizens' freedom of expression and right to access justice, especially when they may lack the means for elaborate wardrobe changes.' 'The Bar Council of India's authority under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act empowers it to regulate advocates' dress, not the public's; extending such rules to litigants or clerks risks legal invalidation,' she added. Supreme Court advocate Shariq Ahmed Abbasi, however, said the Rohini Bar Association notice must be welcomed by the public at large. This move, he said, is only to 'save litigants from the menace of touts. It was repeatedly brought to the knowledge of the Bar body that several miscreants had falsely represented themselves as lawyers and defrauded the litigants.' 'The step should be seen in the right earnest with the objective of preserving the interests of litigants and as a mark of professional identity and dignity of the legal fraternity,' he told ThePrint. About alternatives, advocate Pandey explained how the issue of impersonation can be better addressed through 'targeted measures such as mandatory identity cards, better gate security, biometric checks, or visible signage — not blanket attire bans'. Ved Prakash Sharma, co-chairman of the Bar Council of India since 2019 and a former chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi, also criticised this move. He said a bar association is an association of advocates working at a particular court complex, and they have no right or authority to prescribe a dress code for members of the society. 'They (bar associations) have no legal or moral authority to do that, and (they) are exceeding their jurisdiction and authority by prescribing a dress code or penalising people wearing advocate attire,' he added. 'Even for advocates, the only statutory body—Bar Council of India—will prescribe a dress code.' He acknowledged the concerns about touts, security and safety as legitimate, but said 'these things are to be taken up with the law enforcement authorities, the police concerned or the district judge or the High Court.' 'And it is their business how to control and regulate the entry of unwarranted people in the court complex.' (Edited by Ajeet Tiwari) Also Read: Bangs, lipstick, low neckline—for Indian woman lawyers, merit evaluation steeped in misogyny
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
Arunachal minister reiterates state govts commitment to ensure child safety
Agency: Itanagar, July 20 (PTI) Arunachal Pradesh Women and Child Development minister Dasanglu Pul has expressed deep concern over the recent child abuse case reported in Lower Dibang Valley district of the state, and reiterated the state government's commitment to ensuring justice and safety of children. In a meeting convened with key child welfare stakeholders at Roing on Saturday, Pul assured full government support to the victims and their families, an official statement said. The stakeholders include members of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), District Child Protection Unit (DCPU), and the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) of the district. 'My heart goes out to the victims and their families. We stand united to ensure justice and healing. No child should ever feel unsafe," the minister said, underscoring the importance of coordinated action in such cases. At least eight minor girls were subjected to physical abuse in a private school at Roing, by a migrant youth from neighbouring Assam, who was later lynched by a mob on July 11. The 19-year-old man, identified as Riaz-Ul Kurim from Bongaigaon in Assam, was taken into police custody on Friday after it came to light that he had allegedly sexually assaulted several girls of a school, police had said. The parents of the girls, who filed a complaint with the school authorities, had nabbed the youth and thrashed him before police rescued him and took him into custody. However, a mob barged into the police station, dragged the youth outside and beat him up. As he was rescued and taken to the hospital, they followed him and thrashed him again, ultimately leading to his death. The youth used to work at a construction site near the school, police said. The minister also welcomed the state cabinet's recent approval to implement the 'Support Person' provision under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The initiative aims to provide emotional and procedural assistance to child victims during police and court processes. 'Children facing such trauma often feel scared, confused, and isolated. This important step ensures they receive emotional and procedural support, bringing us closer to a truly child-friendly justice system, one that protects, empowers, and upholds the dignity of our youngest citizens," the minister said. The move is being seen as a significant milestone in Arunachal Pradesh's efforts to build a robust and compassionate child protection framework. PTI UPL UPL RG view comments First Published: July 20, 2025, 11:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court asks authorities to decide former NIA judge's plea for arms licence
The Delhi High Court has asked authorities to decide a plea of a former special judge of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) seeking an arms licence. Citing personal security reasons, the judge sought direction to the Delhi Government and police to decide his application for issuance of the arms licence. Justice Sachin Datta, while disposing of the petition, noted that the counsel for the authorities have submitted that the decision on the November 2023 application will be taken and the petitioner would be informed. "The above redresses the immediate grievance of the petitioner," the Court noted in its May 30 order. UGC's anti-ragging system has utterly failed, says Delhi High Court It also said if the petitioner is aggrieved with the decision taken by the authorities, he would be at liberty to take appropriate remedies under law. According to the plea, the judge served as a special NIA judge in Tripura and was currently on deputation in Delhi. He said he applied for an arms licence in November 2023 but no action was taken by the Delhi Police licence authority. Delhi High Court quashes FIRs against Indian nationals for housing Tablighi Jamaat attendees during COVID-19 It said since his family is permanently stationed in Delhi, he applied for an arms licence to ensure safety so that he is free from any "external criminal threats and potential non-interference in free movement and is able to defend himself." "It is shocking that the petitioner and his family are living with no security and this potentialises both direct and indirect threats to their personal safety and security," the plea submitted.
