NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today said it would tomorrow hear a plea seeking an SIT probe into the incidents at Patiala House courts in which three lawyers were allegedly caught on camera "bragging and boasting" they had beaten up JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar and others, including journalists.
The matter will be heard by a bench of justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre which will also hear the first petition filed after the arrest of Kanhaiya in which action was sought against Delhi police for its alleged inaction in the court complex where students and scribes were beaten by people in black robes.
The bench today agreed to hear the plea of advocate R P Luthra that the apex court should follow the Code of Criminal Procedure and should not give an impression that judicial hierarchy is being bypassed.
It, however, rejected another plea, filed by advocate M L Sharma alleging that a fraud has been played on the court by the petitioner advocate in the instant matter.
The court, on February 26, had sought response from the Centre and Delhi Police on the plea filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal seeking an SIT probe and initiation of contempt action against the lawyers for allegedly beating Kanhaiya and others in the district courts complex.
The plea has sought "suo motu contempt proceeding" against lawyers Vikram Singh Chauhan, Yashpal Singh and Om Sharma on the ground that they have allegedly been caught on camera talking about the attacks.
It also sought a direction to set up a special investigation team to probe the incidents of violent attacks on journalists, students, teachers, defence lawyers and Kanhaiya on February 15 and 17 by some advocates in the premises of Patiala House courts here during the hearing of the sedition case involving the JNUSU leader.
The plea alleged that the three lawyers interfered in the "administration of justice" and willfully violated the orders passed by the apex court on February 17.
The petition, which also makes Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Police as parties, said facts have come to light that there was "blatant violation of the rule of law" in the trial court premises.