Neelam Azad, implicated in the Parliament security breach case, has lodged a habeas corpus petition with the Delhi High Court, urgently seeking her release from police custody.
The basis of her plea challenges the legality of the trial court's December 21 order that remanded her to police custody.
In her petition, Azad contends that she was deprived of the opportunity to consult legal representatives of her choice for her defense during the remand proceedings.
According to Azad, it was only after the remand application was concluded that the court inquired about her preference for legal representation.
She affirmed her desire for legal counsel, and an order was subsequently issued permitting her to consult with her chosen advocate.
Azad highlights her initial court appearance on December 14, after spending 29 hours in police custody. She alleges that the Delhi Police denied her the chance to consult an advocate of her choice.
Instead, upon arriving at court, an advocate associated with Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) already present was appointed, as she lacked legal representation.
Azad emphasizes that neither she nor her co-accused were given a choice regarding their legal representation, nor were they provided with information about the appointed counsel that might influence their decision.
Furthermore, she asserts that she was not given the opportunity to discuss the circumstances of her arrest with the DLSA advocate.
The plea argues that denying Azad the legal representation of her choice constitutes a violation of her rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Azad, along with three other individuals – Sagar Sharma, Manoranjan D, and Amol Shinde – was arrested by the Delhi Police on December 13.
Azad and Shinde were reportedly protesting outside the Parliament building, while Sharma and Manoranjan D entered the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors' gallery, emitting smoke from canisters.
The trial court, on December 21, instructed the Delhi Police to share the FIR copy with Azad's counsel.
However, this order was subsequently stayed by the High Court on December 22, introducing a layer of complexity to the legal proceedings surrounding the case.
