The Delhi High Court on Friday (May 28) declined to entertain a plea to restrain the media from ‘sensationalising’ the trial of wrestler and Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar in reference to the loss of life of a 23-year previous man, and in search of guidelines for reporting prison circumstances, saying a PIL can’t be filed for a person who’s a ‘vigilant person’. A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh mentioned the petition has been filed on behalf of a ‘vigilant person’ – Sushil Kumar – claiming that media has defamed him by its reportage of the homicide case through which he’s an accused.
“You cannot file a PIL for an individual. We see no reason to entertain litigation on behalf of a vigilant person,” the court docket mentioned and disposed of the plea by a legislation scholar.
The legislation scholar had alleged that Sushil Kumar’s profession and repute has been broken by the media’s reporting of the case towards him in reference to the Chhatrasal Stadium brawl that led to the loss of life of the 23-year-old wrestler. On May 23, a Delhi court docket despatched Kumar to 6-day police custody for interrogation in reference to the killing of a fellow wrestler, saying the allegations towards him are critical in nature and that nobody is above the legislation.
Kumar and his associates allegedly assaulted wrestler Sagar Rana (23) and two of his associates, Sonu and Amit Kumar, on the Chhatrasal stadium right here on the intervening evening of May 4 and 5. Sagar succumbed to the accidents later.
Sushil Kumar was arrested together with co-accused Ajay from outer Delhi’s Mundka on May 23. The two-time Olympic medallist was on the run for almost three weeks.
Allowing the police to interrogate Kumar for six days, the Justice of the Peace had mentioned, “No one is above law and law treats everyone equally. Our Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty to all persons subject to exceptions. The allegations against the accused persons are grave in nature.”
Delhi Police has lodged an FIR within the case underneath sections 302 (homicide), 308 (culpable murder), 365 (kidnapping), 325 (inflicting grievous damage), 323 (voluntarily inflicting damage), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 506 (prison intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR was additionally registered underneath sections 188 (disobedience to order by public servant), 269 (negligent act possible to unfold an infection of illness), 120B (prison conspiracy) and 34 (frequent intention) of the IPC and numerous sections of the Arms Act.
