The Delhi Excessive Court docket on Friday declined to entertain a plea to restrain the media from ‘sensationalising’ the trial of wrestler and Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar in reference to the demise of a 23-year outdated man, and searching for guidelines for reporting prison circumstances, saying a PIL can’t be filed for a person who’s a “vigilant particular person”.
A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh stated the petition has been filed on behalf of a “vigilant particular person” – Kumar – claiming that media has defamed him by its reportage of the homicide case wherein he’s an accused.
“You can’t file a PIL for a person. We see no purpose to entertain litigation on behalf of a vigilant particular person,” the court docket stated and disposed of the plea by a legislation pupil.
The legislation pupil had alleged that Kumar’s profession and fame has been broken by the media’s reporting of the case towards him in reference to the Chhatrasal Stadium brawl that led to the demise of the 23-year-old wrestler.
On Might 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 Dhankar (23) and two of his mates, Sonu and Amit Kumar, on the Chhatrasal stadium right here on the intervening night time of Might four and 5. Sagar succumbed to the accidents later.
Kumar was arrested together with co-accused Ajay from outer Delhi’s Mundka on Might 23. The 2-time Olympic medallist was on the run for almost three weeks.
Permitting the police to interrogate Kumar for six days, the Justice of the Peace had stated, “Nobody is above legislation and legislation treats everybody equally. Our Structure ensures the precise to life and liberty to all individuals topic to exceptions. The allegations towards the accused individuals are grave in nature.”
Delhi Police has lodged an FIR within the case below 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 below sections 188 (disobedience to order by public servant), 269 (negligent act more likely to unfold an infection of illness), 120B (prison conspiracy) and 34 (frequent intention) of the IPC and varied sections of the Arms Act.