.jpg)
Delhi High Court pulls up Sourav and Ashutosh: ‘The CJP organization remains the same, but its objective has shifted’; pointed questions raised during bail plea hearing.
New Delhi, October 21: A heated hearing took place on Wednesday at the Delhi High Court regarding a petition filed by ‘Cockroach Janata Party’ (CJP) leaders Sourav Das and Ashutosh Rankaa, challenging an order that extended their judicial custody. While refusing to grant relief to the petitioners, the bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad made a sharp observation regarding the organization’s purpose. The court remarked, “The CJP organization is the same, but its objective has changed. Initially, this was a student protest, and even young children were involved. But now, the intent appears different. The people are the same, the organization is the same, yet the objective keeps shifting. When you first approached the court in July, the objective was different.” ‘You are not Gen-Z.’
During the proceedings, the court inquired about the ages of the petitioners. Advocate Abhik Chimni stated that Sourav Das is 27 years old, and Ashutosh Rankaa is 32. To this, the judge remarked, “Then you are certainly not ‘Gen Z.’ The generation born after 1997 is called Gen Z. Therefore, you cannot label yourself a ‘young student protester.’” Suspicion of disturbing the peace.
The bench further asked, “Who are you? What is your organization, and what is your true motive? Such questions become significant when there is a threat to law and order or a possibility of a breach of the peace. You have already violated a ‘peace bond.’ This is the second such instance.” ‘Do not use the court as a platform to be heard by the public.’
The court advised the counsel, “Do not make arguments in court merely for the sake of being heard by the public. Why the rush to approach the High Court directly when the matter is coming up before the subordinate magistrate today? If the decision goes in your favor there—at 2:00 PM or 4:00 PM—the matter concludes. If the outcome is unfavorable, you may approach a revision court or return here. Do not make arguments now that could lead to a permanent ruling against you.” Even though the High Court was closed for the Dussehra holidays, the lawyers had requested an urgent hearing. On Monday, the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) had extended the custody of the two individuals until October 21. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma stated that their custody period ends today; they are being produced before the SEM, and instructions have been issued to provide new sureties. Advocate Chimni argued that the order dated October 19, which extended the custody, was beyond the court’s jurisdiction and infringed upon personal liberty. He contended that the court had wrongly denied bail, despite the provision of valid sureties. (Source: Lokmat)
New Delhi, October 21: A heated hearing took place on Wednesday at the Delhi High Court regarding a petition filed by ‘Cockroach Janata Party’ (CJP) leaders Sourav Das and Ashutosh Rankaa, challenging an order that extended their judicial custody. While refusing to grant relief to the petitioners, the bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad made a sharp observation regarding the organization’s purpose. The court remarked, “The CJP organization is the same, but its objective has changed. Initially, this was a student protest, and even young children were involved. But now, the intent appears different. The people are the same, the organization is the same, yet the objective keeps shifting. When you first approached the court in July, the objective was different.” ‘You are not Gen-Z.’
During the proceedings, the court inquired about the ages of the petitioners. Advocate Abhik Chimni stated that Sourav Das is 27 years old, and Ashutosh Rankaa is 32. To this, the judge remarked, “Then you are certainly not ‘Gen Z.’ The generation born after 1997 is called Gen Z. Therefore, you cannot label yourself a ‘young student protester.’” Suspicion of disturbing the peace.
The bench further asked, “Who are you? What is your organization, and what is your true motive? Such questions become significant when there is a threat to law and order or a possibility of a breach of the peace. You have already violated a ‘peace bond.’ This is the second such instance.” ‘Do not use the court as a platform to be heard by the public.’
The court advised the counsel, “Do not make arguments in court merely for the sake of being heard by the public. Why the rush to approach the High Court directly when the matter is coming up before the subordinate magistrate today? If the decision goes in your favor there—at 2:00 PM or 4:00 PM—the matter concludes. If the outcome is unfavorable, you may approach a revision court or return here. Do not make arguments now that could lead to a permanent ruling against you.” Even though the High Court was closed for the Dussehra holidays, the lawyers had requested an urgent hearing. On Monday, the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) had extended the custody of the two individuals until October 21. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma stated that their custody period ends today; they are being produced before the SEM, and instructions have been issued to provide new sureties. Advocate Chimni argued that the order dated October 19, which extended the custody, was beyond the court’s jurisdiction and infringed upon personal liberty. He contended that the court had wrongly denied bail, despite the provision of valid sureties. (Source: Lokmat)
During the proceedings, the court inquired about the ages of the petitioners. Advocate Abhik Chimni stated that Sourav Das is 27 years old, and Ashutosh Rankaa is 32. To this, the judge remarked, “Then you are certainly not ‘Gen Z.’ The generation born after 1997 is called Gen Z. Therefore, you cannot label yourself a ‘young student protester.’” Suspicion of disturbing the peace.
The bench further asked, “Who are you? What is your organization, and what is your true motive? Such questions become significant when there is a threat to law and order or a possibility of a breach of the peace. You have already violated a ‘peace bond.’ This is the second such instance.” ‘Do not use the court as a platform to be heard by the public.’
The court advised the counsel, “Do not make arguments in court merely for the sake of being heard by the public. Why the rush to approach the High Court directly when the matter is coming up before the subordinate magistrate today? If the decision goes in your favor there—at 2:00 PM or 4:00 PM—the matter concludes. If the outcome is unfavorable, you may approach a revision court or return here. Do not make arguments now that could lead to a permanent ruling against you.” Even though the High Court was closed for the Dussehra holidays, the lawyers had requested an urgent hearing. On Monday, the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) had extended the custody of the two individuals until October 21. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma stated that their custody period ends today; they are being produced before the SEM, and instructions have been issued to provide new sureties. Advocate Chimni argued that the order dated October 19, which extended the custody, was beyond the court’s jurisdiction and infringed upon personal liberty. He contended that the court had wrongly denied bail, despite the provision of valid sureties. (Source: Lokmat)
