SC to hear plea over woman lawyer's manhandling by police
Posted on May 27 2014 | IANS
New Delhi, May 27 : The Supreme Court will Wednesday hear a petition seeking transfer of investigation to the CBI in a case of assault and manhandling of a woman apex court lawyer by Delhi Police personnel.
The woman lawyer said she was manhandled April 4, when she went to the Lajpat Nagar police station to serve a court order restraining the eviction of vegetable vendors.
The vacation bench of Justice B.S. Chauhan and Justice A.K. Sikri Tuesday decided to hear the matter Wednesday after amicus curiae Vijay Hansaria said police personnel posted at the Lajpat Nagar police station, including its station house officer (SHO) and additional SHO, were tampering with the evidence by intimidating the witnesses.
The woman advocate had gone to the police station to serve an order by the Saket district court staying the eviction of her clients who were vegetable venders.
Earlier, a bench headed by Chief Justice R.M. Lodha took suo motu cognizance of the incident, and treated a complaint by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association to the Delhi Police commissioner as a petition.
The court, while issuing notice May 9, asked the police commissioner to submit a report on action taken on the April 12 complaint by the aggrieved woman lawyer and the April 28 complaint by the Supreme Court Bar Association.
By the same order, police were asked to ensure that no harm comes to the woman lawyer.
The court also appointed Vijay Hansaria as amicus curiae in the matter.
Hansaria Tuesday told the court that after its order asking the police commissioner to file report on action taken against the policemen, the witnesses were being intimidated into resiling from their statements.
The court was told that the woman lawyer suddenly started received repeated phone calls from some unknown Pakistani number.
Hansaria told the court that the woman lawyer got to know with the help of software on her cell phone that the calls were made from a number from Pakistan.
The amicus curiae expressed apprehension that the woman lawyer was under some kind of surveillance and her phone was being tapped.