New Delhi: The security of country's Lower House of the Parliament - the Lok Sabha was breached on Wednesday. Legal experts believe that due to the flexible laws, this matter will have to be investigated very carefully.
Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay claimed that since jumping into the Parliament is not a heinous crime, the accused in this case should be interrogated.
Two intruders jumped from the visitor's gallery in Lok Sabha, shouted slogans and threw something that emitted yellowish smoke on Wednesday marking the 22nd anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack.
"Since we do not have any special law that makes jumping into the Parliament or the Supreme Court a heinous crime, these people must have taken opinion from someone or the other regarding it. They must have come to know that this is not a serious crime, there will not be a punishment of even ten to five years," Upadhyay said.
Legal experts also believe that at present it is a case of simple trespassing, hence 'narco-polygraph-brain mapping test' should be conducted on these accused and their call details of the last 15 days should also be extracted so that information can be obtained as to whom they have spoken to and contacted on WhatApp.
According to Ashwini Upadhyay, it is possible that the accused could have received "some kind of political protection". “ It has to be seen who is giving the accused protection. That will be known only when their complete CDR is extracted and polygraph-brain mapping is done. This does not constitute a serious crime in the eyes of law. A case of simple trespassing may be made out (of it). There is no crime in jumping into the Parliament. It has to be seen what sections have been included in the First Information Report (FIR). No matter what the police say, the trial will be conducted in the court as per the law. In my understanding, there is no such law that jumping into Parliament is a heinous crime," added the Supreme Court lawyer.
Legal luminaries also believe that "the security breach" was planned after the accused met in person. "There must have been proper recce as to whether it can be done or not, which things are confiscated at the (Parliament) gate and which aren't. One should deeply investigate the matter," added the top court lawyer.
Read more:
