This, he said, has been recorded by the magistrate in his order.After going through various reports, Justice Chelameswar told Mr Sinha: "Is this the efficiency of the Delhi police in handling the situation. He also drew the attention of the court to a report of the National Human Rights Commission. Sharma — and setting up of a SIT to probe into the incidents, said the Delhi police remained a silent spectator when the whole incident happened. You are supposed to prevent the assault and apprehend the intruders.Mr Sinha denied that the JNUSU president was assaulted inside the court room. He denied that the Delhi police had remained mute spectators when the violent incidents had happened. He refuted the allegation of the six-member advocate panel that Mr Kumar was assaulted inside the court room.At this juncture, Justice Chelameswar drew the counsel’s attention to the Delhi high court custom precision registrar-general’s report which said the police did not arrest the intruders.M. Chelameswar and A."

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Ms Kamini Jaiswal seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against three lawyers — Vikram Singh Chouhan, Yashpal Singh and O. He said even the registrar-general of the Delhi high court had in his report said that an intruder entered the adjoining room of the court hall and assaulted Mr Kumar. Arguments will continue on April 22.P.A bench of Justices J. This, the judge said, showed the efficiency of the Delhi police.Observing that there has been inaction on the part of the Delhi police, the Supreme Court on Monday indicated that it will consider setting up a special investigation team to probe into the incidents of assault of JNU Students’ Union president Kanhaiya Kumar when he was produced in the Patiala House court on February 17. The petitioners are justified in asking for a SIT and we will examine this.Citing the report of the six-member advocate panel that had visited the Patiala House court complex, Mr Bhushan said there is blatant violation of the rule of law and also contempt on the face of the court committed by certain lawyers, in the Patiala House court premises and complete inaction of the Delhi police.

In these circumstances, Mr Bhushan urged the court to set up an SIT to probe into the incidents of attacks on February 15 and 17 and initiate contempt of court proceedings against the three lawyers. He pointed out that two FIRs were registered and the three lawyers were arrested and they had come out on bail.. Sapre did not accept the arguments of senior counsel Ajit Kumar Sinha, appearing for the Delhi police, that everything was under control and no one had assaulted Mr Kumar in the court hall prior to the commencement of the proceedings. Now you say that the intruders are lawyers.