City anchor: Which of the two is your lawyer, trial court to ask gangrape accused

It turned out to be a bit of an anti-climax in the Supreme Court on Wednesday when it was expected to hear and decide a petition by one of the six Delhi gangrape accused to shift the trial out of the city.

Following an adjournment, a half-hour hearing and a verbal spat between them, the two lawyers for the accused in the case ended up sending the plea back to the trial court.

With the help of Mukesh, who has sought transfer of trial by filing a petition in the Supreme Court, the trial court will now have to ascertain which of the two lawyers has been authorised by the accused to represent him in court.

According to an order by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, the trial court will question Mukesh � he has purportedly signed vakalatnamas in favour of both advocates � on who he wants as his lawyer.

Once Mukesh decides on the lawyer, the trial court will ask him if he really wanted the transfer petition heard by the apex court, that there was no duress on him in leading this plea. The trial judge will then send a report to the Supreme Court which will take up the matter next Tuesday.

On Wednesday morning, advocates M L Sharma and V K Anand showed up in the Supreme Court, each claiming to be “validly” representing Mukesh.

The bench asked Anand if he had any authorisation from the Advocate-On-Record (AOR) who had filed the transfer petition in the apex court. When Anand failed to show the authorisation, the bench directed him to come with a no-objection from the AOR.

It then asked Sharma if he was being assisted by the AOR to prove his bonafide. To this, Sharma said that the AOR was stuck in a traffic jam. The bench asked both lawyers to be prepared to prove their bonafide and adjourned the matter until 2 pm.

Around 2 pm, both lawyers turned up for the hearing with the AOR standing next to Sharma. The duo also submitted letters of authorisation from Mukesh, with his thumb impressions on it. “It seems the left thumb impression is of the same person,” the court observed.

The lawyers then got into a verbal spat. While Anand said he did not want the trial to be shifted outside Delhi, Sharma alleged that Anand obtained the permission after torturing the accused.

The squabbling prompted the bench to say “we can’t turn this place into some sort of tamasha.”

The court then dictated its first order. It asked the Sessions court to ascertain the veracity of the statements of the two lawyers, so that it could go ahead and hear the transfer petition.

The court also asked for vetting their conduct under the Advocate’s Act.

But as soon as the bench finished dictating its order, Anand got up and said his authorisation was only to represent Mukesh in the trial and that he did not have to do anything with the apex court’s matter.

“Then why were we hearing you if you don’t have to do anything with the transfer petition. It is strange. You led us up the garden path,” said an upset bench as it cancelled the first order. In the final order, the court asked the trial judge to file a report after verifying from the accused who his counsel was and whether he wanted his transfer petition heard.

Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/city-anchor-which-of-the-two-is-your-lawyer-trial-court-to-ask-gangrape-accused/1063990/0

Lawyers squabble, each says he represents gangrape accused

Two lawyers for the accused in the Delhi gangrape case on Tuesday traded charges in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, each claiming he “validly” represents one of the accused who wants the trial shifted out of Delhi.

The drama unfolded before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir when the court was about to rise for the lunch break. Since the bench was supposed to sit until 1 pm, it was understood that the petition by advocate M L Sharma, on behalf of accused Mukesh, will not be taken up for hearing on Tuesday.

Mukesh has sought transfer of trial to Mathura in Uttar Pradesh or any state outside Delhi, citing fears of not getting a fair trial because of the media pressure and attitude of the state.

Sharma requested the bench to urgently hear the matter since a fast track court has initiated legal proceedings. Cutting him short, another lawyer V K Anand, who also represents some of the other accused in the case, claimed that Sharma did not merit an audience in the matter because Mukesh had chosen him as his lawyer.

Sharma hit back saying Anand’s arguments were “baseless”, that he could not be allowed to jump into the fray on the basis of frivolous claims. Anand, however, said he had a “valid” vakalatnama to prove that Mukesh had engaged him to appear in the case.

While the two lawyers levelled allegations at each other, the bench said it would hear them only on Wednesday and they could put forth all their contentions then. On Monday, the court had accepted Sharma’s request for urgent hearing of the transfer petition and directed the registry to list the matter. Mukesh is one of the six accused of raping a woman on a moving bus on December 16. She died in a Singapore hospital on December 29.

Today, SC will hear plea to move trial out of city

Accepting a request for urgent hearing, the Supreme Court will on Tuesday take up a petition by one of the six accused in the December 16 gangrape case. In his petition, Mukesh has demanded that the trial be shifted to a state other than Delhi as the public sentiment in the capital has led to a “bias” against him.

On Monday, a bench led by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir directed the registry to list the petition. The counsel for Mukesh had pleaded for immediate hearing since the trial was being initiated by the fast-track court.

“Let the petition be heard urgently. Due to the media and other factors, public sentiment against the accused have entered each and every house. Hence, free and fair trial was not possible in these circumstances. The fast-track court is also initiating the proceedings and, hence, it should be immediately listed,” advocate M L Sharma said.

Mukesh has been charged with murder, gangrape and unnatural offences in the case.

Sharma also asked for a stay or a “status quo” in the fast-track court until Mukesh’s petition was decided, but the bench turned down his request, saying it will hear him on merits on Tuesday.

The advocate claimed that the trial court judges were not paying heed to his requests of security for Mukesh and for age-determination test on one of the accused.

In a petition that termed the magistrate as “biased” and the judiciary “under pressure” to pass adverse orders against him, Mukesh has sought transfer of the case outside Delhi.

“...In these circumstances, petitioner cannot get justice in Delhi at all. Due to regular agitation, police as well as judicial official are under pressure to pass an order according to the demand of the agitators,” the petition said.

The petition claimed that some adverse comments from Delhi High Court and Supreme Court judges had also affected the mind of the trial court judge and, therefore, Mukesh cannot get a fair trial.

“Local police authorities, jail authorities and the public prosecutor have conducted themselves in a manner, which is reflecting a total bias and prejudice against the accused,” the petition said.