Jawaharlal Nehru University Professor Atul Kumar Johri’s bail, after only 80 minutes of being in custody, has once again exposed the question of biased treatment in legal proceedings.
Johri, who was accused of sexual misconduct by at least nine JNU students, was arrested on 20 March.
Johri has eight FIRs registered against him. He was arrested four days after the first FIR was registered. He received bail on the same day as his arrest, in approximately 80 minutes.
Johri’s advocate RK Wadhwa insisted in a Patiala House Court, where the bail plea was moved, that sending Johri to jail would ruin his career.
Now, let’s rewind to the Kanhaiya Kumar case. Kumar was arrested in February 2016 on charges of raising, what was perceived as, ‘anti-national’ slogans in JNU premises.
Kumar received interim bail only after 19 days of being under arrest for charges that, at the time, were supported by inconclusive evidence.
On the other hand, Yashpal Singh and Vikram Singh Chauhan, two lawyers who were a part of the group that assaulted journalists, students, and supporters of Kumar in the Patiala House Court complex, were given bails within minutes.
Both lawyers admitted in a sting video that they had pre-planned the attack. Vikram Singh Chauhan also admitted to have beaten up Kumar till he ‘wet his pants’.
At the time, the question of the legal rationale behind this disparate treatment had been raised.
Two years later, the question persists, this time in the case of Johri, coupled with questions of privilege and power.
(The Quint has given up the use of plastic plates and spoons. This Earth Hour, what will you #GiveUp to save the planet? Use the hashtag #GiveUp and tag @TheQuint to tell us.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)