According to the allegations made against him, Surjewala participated in a violent protest at a Divisional Commissioner’s office in Varanasi in August 2000 together with other Congress leaders.
On November 7, the Varanasi extra sessions judge presiding over the special MP/MLA court issued the warrant, requesting Surjewala’s attendance in the matter.
In a 23-year-old case in which Congressman Surjewala is accused of alleged vandalism during a political protest, an MP/MLA court in Varanasi issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against him. On Thursday, the Supreme Court maintained the NBW against Surjewala for a period of five weeks.
Senior attorney Abhishek Manu Singhvi asked for an urgent hearing of the case, and a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud granted Surjewala’s motion to appear before the trial court in four weeks for the cancellation of the warrant.
We allow the petitioner to file a request for NBW cancellation with the trial court within a four-week period. Five weeks will pass before the warrant is executed, the bench, which also includes justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, declared.
The extra sessions judge of Varanasi, who is in charge of the special MP/MLA court, issued the warrant on November 7 in order to have Surjewala appear in court.
As the Allahabad High Court has reserved orders on October 30 regarding a petition filed by Surjewala seeking a dismissal of the criminal case launched against him in August 2000, Singhvi informed the court that there was no rush for the judge to issue NBW.
(Image Source : Hindustan Times)
He went on to say that Surjewala had contacted the High Court to request cancellation of the NBW after it was issued, but the HC had refused to list the case, thus he had to go to the highest court.
It’s a protest against politics. Where is the requirement that an NBW be given right now? Singhvi stated, “I will take my legal recourse when the HC judgement comes.”
The bench instructed Singhvi to cancel the warrant and direct his client to appear before the trial court. Singhvi stated that he has already requested the trial court to provide the prosecution’s readable and legible documents, as well as the charge sheet submitted for the case. Singhvi asked the court for four weeks of “breathing time.”
Following the hearing of submissions, the bench declared that, in light of the case’s facts, the petitioner was free to file a request for the cancellation of NBW with the trial court within four weeks, during which time the warrant would not be executed for up to five weeks.
Since the state was not represented in the case, the SC decided it was inappropriate to notify the UP government.
The case began in 2000 when Surjewala, then the national president of the Youth Congress, and other Congressmen were arrested for allegedly raising a disturbance in protest of the party officials’ purportedly bogus accusations that they were involved in the Varanasi Samvasini incident.
According to the police, Surjewala and his supporters assaulted people, damaged property, and interfered with public employees’ ability to perform their jobs during the protest.
A criminal complaint was filed against them at the Varanasi Cantt police station, citing several sections of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and the Indian Penal Code.
