A Delhi court on Wednesday directed officials to provide AAP leader Manish Sisodia with the CCTV footage of its premises when he was allegedly manhandled by security personnel.
“As some allegations of manhandling against lockup officials were levelled on behalf of the accused earlier, the said footage has been directed to be preserved and produced… Let an extra copy of the above footage in a separate pen drive be also provided by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical, PWD to Reader of the court before next date and the same be supplied to counsel representing the said accused,” Special Judge M.K. Nagpal said.
The court has posted the matter for hearing next on August 25.
Following Sisodia’s allegation of mistreatment by security personnel, the Delhi Police had filed an application requesting permission to produce him only via video conference, citing chaos caused by the presence of AAP supporters and media in the corridors when he was brought to court. However, while the court permitted journalists to cover the proceedings, it prohibited AAP activists and supporters of Sisodia from entering the gallery, passage, or courtroom during his appearances related to the alleged excise policy scam.
The court had directed media persons to maintain a safe distance from Sisodia, who is in judicial custody in connection with the excise policy case, and not conduct interviews with him.
Initially, the court had suggested that Sisodia be produced through video conference only, but after considering the arguments presented by Sisodia and his advocate, who asserted his right to physical presence for an effective hearing and participation in the proceedings, the judge ordered his physical presence in future hearings of the case.
The judge had also directed that no public figures, AAP activists, or supporters of the accused be allowed access to the gallery, passage, or courtroom.
The lockup in-charge at Rouse Avenue Courts was also directed to promptly report any violation of these instructions to the court. During the hearing, the judge had informed the defence counsel that hybrid hearings are permissible and, with consent, the court could issue directions for Sisodia’s appearance via video conference to prevent a recurrence of such incidents and ensure his safety.
However, Sisodia had expressed his disinterest in appearing through video conference, asserting his right to physical presence. He had argued that it is the responsibility of security officers to ensure his safety during his appearances, and his right to be present in the court and participate in the proceedings should not be restricted due to their lapses or failures.
