A Delhi court has granted bail to two law students who were arrested earlier this month after allegedly causing a disturbance inside the Supreme Court and using abusive language during court proceedings.
Prabal Pratap Singh and Chanderbhan, students of Lucknow University pursuing their third and second years of law respectively, were taken into custody on July 11 following an incident that unfolded a day earlier in Court No. 13 of the apex court. The duo had appeared in the matter as petitioners representing themselves.
According to the complaint lodged by Supreme Court security personnel, Singh became agitated during the hearing, threw papers inside the courtroom and allegedly directed offensive remarks at the Chief Justice of India. The complaint further alleged that when security staff attempted to intervene, Singh pushed one of the officials and obstructed him from discharging his duties. Chanderbhan was accused of assisting and encouraging the conduct.
While allowing their bail pleas, Judicial Magistrate First Class Ravi of the Patiala House Courts strongly condemned the alleged behaviour. The court observed that dissatisfaction with a judicial outcome or the absence of legal representation cannot justify disorderly conduct in a courtroom, including throwing documents or using abusive language against a judge, particularly the holder of the country’s highest judicial office.
The magistrate noted that such actions strike at the decorum expected within a court of law and warned that overlooking them could send an incorrect message about acceptable courtroom conduct.
At the same time, the court pointed out that the Supreme Court itself had reacted to the episode with notable restraint. Reflecting on the institution’s response, the order observed that the authority and stature of the country’s highest court are not undermined by the actions of a single agitated litigant.
The order further stated that subordinate courts, while deciding questions of bail, should be guided by the same sense of balance and institutional composure demonstrated by the Supreme Court.
Emphasising that the offences involved are not classified as heinous and that the investigation is substantially complete, the court held that the seriousness of the language allegedly used could not, by itself, justify prolonged pre-trial detention.
Making it clear that its observations were limited to the issue of bail and would not influence the trial, the court concluded that continued custody of the accused was unwarranted and directed their release on bail.
