To,
Honorable Chief Justice of India,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi, India.
Respected sir,
This is to bring to your notice that even after the recent Judgment of Apex Court, where it was said that, “Ensure that no innocent has the feeling of sufferance only because ‘my name is Khan, but I am not a terrorist,’ still this is being continued on regular basis at one place or the other. It is matter of grave concern that Supreme Court judgment is not in implementation instead it is violated by the people who are practicing law and by profession he called an “Advocate” but in fact he is violating all the rules and norms of legal profession. One such incident has happened atHyderabad where a research scholar from Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) had come toHyderabad on a research study on terror cases. His name is Mr. Sharib Ali. While meeting with Civil Liberties committee various people and advocates to collect the legal documents etc. he was referred to meet an advocate named Rajavardhan Reddy. To meet him he called on his mobile to take an appointment. On calling, Sharib was asked to come to the court; when he reached the court on the given time, the advocate was not there and upon calling again advocate said he had to leave the court due to some work. Then he asked him to come to his residence in the evening i.e. at 8 pm on the same day. Then Mr. Sharib along with another student Mr. Mohd Ismail Khan who is a fourth year law student from Osmania University college of Law and also part time reporter to TCN a news website, reached the advocate’s residence, but they found that he is not there at home and after some time he came along with his wife. He took them inside the house and asked them to sit and went inside saying that he want to fresh up.
Then he called them at his office and started asking them to show their proof of identities and also the purpose of meeting him even though Mr. Sharib had informed him on phone, the purpose. The purpose was again explained to the advocate, then said to them, ‘ why did you come to meet me instead of going to NIA directly and I have to ask your identities because terrorists are every where and I have threat to my life, and due to same reason I also had to call police.’ In no time police personnel arrived and the inspector of Malakpet police station enquired the two students and took their identity proof and other related documents. Also some youths gathered outside the advocate’s residence and they were identified as activists of Hindu Vahini from the stickers on their bikes.
Meanwhile the advocate spoke to the students and said that he is the president of Hindu Vahini, till then the students did not know about that. After the students completed discussion with advocate, they asked back their identity proofs to be returned. On this the police man who was sitting there said you will have to come to police station to take them back. The students were taken to police station and interrogated thoroughly, recorded their statements, photocopies of their identity proof were made. On asking the inspector, he revealed that as Advocate Rajavardhan Reddy is the president of Hindu Vahini he had called them saying that he felt threatened by two students and hence they had the right to verify and keep their details for their records. Then the Police Inspector let them go by saying ‘Why did you have to visit this guy on being Muslims. You know he is the president of Hindu Vahini and he deals with all Hindu cases.’
So, with the above we can understand how the advocate wanted to threaten the students by creating an atmosphere of terror. On one side he did not meet them at court, called them to his residence and on the other side said, “Terrorists are every where and I have threat”. There by creating a drama by calling the police and Hindu Vahini activists.
If at all he had such kind of threat he could have deny meeting with them or would have met them at court itself and should not have called them at his residence as the students were Muslims. Upon that he also indirectly named them as terrorists. With this we can imagine how communalized the lawyer is! Now it must be decided from the Supreme Court whether this type of person should be allowed to practice in the court of law?
This committee requests you to ensure that no innocent has the feeling of sufferance only because ‘my name is Khan, but I am not a terrorist’.
Therefore, we request the Apex Court to issue the directions to all the Bar Councils of India especially Bar Council of AP to educate their advocates and follow code of conduct and fulfill their professional responsibility in a secular manner regardless of whatever they are outside their profession.
Thanking you,
Lateef Mohammed Khan
Gen. Secretary
Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee. India
